Pasarga/Saugeais World Cup 65 host bid

[Saugeais]

World Cup 65 Host Bid
Pasarga and Saugeais

The Pasarga Footballing Association and the Football Association of Saugeais would like to submit for consideration of the community a bid to host the sixty-fifth edition of association football's World Cup.

Qualifying Format

We always anticipate the possibility of a record number of entries, but with the current signups nearing 180, that is where we are basing our original group formats. The preliminary formats are twenty groups of nine teams or thirty groups of six, both totaling 180 teams.

• Twenty groups necessitate the second-place teams in each group being scheduled for a playoff match to advance. This match would be two legs home-and-home.
• Thirty groups will see only group winners advance.
  We do not have issues with some groups having seven teams and others eight, although we will strive to hold open entries to get an optimal number.

(Should it become clear that more than 180 nations will seek entry, we have prepared additional extreme solutions that incorporate single-round-robin schedules with balanced home-vs-away pairings. For example, 15 groups of 15 would accommodate 227 teams playing 14 matches across 15 matchdays with no playoffs. We are committed to a policy of inclusion in all circumstances.)

Puppets

Players who have previously participated in the World Cup may enter two nations, designating one as a "puppet." Players in their first World Cup are limited to one national entry.

In the event that the hosts must trim the field to make a workable format, after first seeking volunteers then puppets will be trimmed first in strict reverse order of entry (last in, first out).

Tiebreakers

In qualifying stage where home-and-home matches were played

1. Head-to-head points earned
2. Head-to-head goal differential
3. Head-to-head goals scored (with two teams, away goals scored)
4. Goal differential in all matches
5. Goals scored in all matches
6. Playoff match at a neutral site--only when necessary to determine further advancement.

In group stage

1. Goal differential in all matches
2. Goals scored in all matches
3. Head-to-head results
4. Playoff match at a neutral site--only when necessary to determine further advancement.

Scorination

The current edition of xkoranate will be used with the SQIS formula and xkoranate style mods.

Matches will generally be scheduled daily during qualifying and every other day during the World Cup tournament.

Anticipated scorination times for each co-host will be announced.

Rosters

Rosters are strongly encouraged. A team should post one roster to the separate rosters thread. Each roster will be evaluated as a distinct roleplay, not attributed to any one match day, with its bonus doubled.

Any limits on opponents' roleplaying of your characters or events affecting them should they RP first must be outlined in your roster to have effect. For example, these may include limits on godmodding, on use of yellow and/or red cards, on assignment of scorers, or on injuries.

Roleplay Bonuses

A scheme of cumulative bonuses will be used without degradation. A nation earns a maximum of one bonus per match day regardless of the number of RPs submitted. These daily bonuses are scaled according to merit, with the maximum kept unpublished. However, our object with scaling the bonuses will be to allow a nation earning near-maximum bonuses daily to build up to a temporary form comparable to the pre-bonus KPBs of teams ranked in the twenties by the end of qualifying.

For the group stage and tournament proper, teams will begin with their post-qualifying recalculated KPB rank plus their roster bonus. Other RP bonuses are reset to zero.

About the Co-hosts

Pasarga, hosted the 53rd World Cup with Somewhereistonia. A constantly strong face in the world of football, Pasarga has competed since World Cup 46, advancing to the finals 10 times.

Saugeais, previously hosted the 60th World Cup with The Babbage Islands, were junior hosts of Cup of Harmony 47 with Sarzonia, and recently hosted the 50th Baptism of Fire with Apox. They have also been active hosts in a number of sports including major event experience through the World Baseball Classic, the Rugby League World Cup, and the Copa Rushmori. As competitors they have competed in twelve World Cup cycles, beginning with World Cup 53, and have qualified four times.

If there are any questions, please feel free to ask in this thread, where Pasarga and/or myself will answer them.

[Liventia]

30 groups of six makes for 10 MDs which is okay by me, but in the case of a 9 team group (18 matchdays including byes) I have reservations over a lack of RP bonus degradation. I think you're putting too much weight on RP, personally, if I understand your claim about an RPing team being equal to a team ranked 20th without RPing.

[Legalese]

First off, I think it goes without saying that Saug and Pasarga are capable and experienced hosts whom, if selected, will run World Cup LXV just fine. That said, I cannot vote to accept this bid at this time for on simple reason: if their bid is selected, I have no idea what they actually plan on doing, format-wise. Their initial post discusses their options, as well as contingencies should the list grow larger than ever before, but tells us nothing more. I commend them for stepping up by being the first - and potentially the only bid - but shake my head at the lack of a commitment to anything but the scorinator and RP bonus.

Come on guys, you're better than this! Make up your minds about what you really want to do!

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

I, on the other hand, like the idea that the hosts remain open to a variety of formats that will allow for maximum participation. With the number of entrants an unknown variable at this point, I commend the potential hosts for not closing the door at this point. Nothing states that a bid must not be fluid in its make up.

I also applaud the non-degrading bonus. RL has a way of dictating and limiting participation at times and I find it unfair for bonuses of those who can be on every day to be maxed out while a nation with four (just an example) solid RPs early gets no bonus when RL keeps them away for a few days. I think at times that people over rate the effectiveness of the RP bonus. With either major scorinator rank and random seem to pull through just fine. See Starblaydia and Chenkorya for proof.

My issue is with the complete reset of the bonus following the group stage. If the goal is to allow an unranked side the possibility of equaling the KPBs of a non-RP nation ranked in the 20s, then how is it fair to see that effort taken completely away for the sake of a new ranking probably somewhere around 180? I would like to see way for those nations to retain at least a part of their hard work.

I know both of you will be excellent hosts. Good luck.

[Vilita]

My issue is with the complete reset of the bonus following the group stage. If the goal is to allow an unranked side the possibility of equaling the KPBs of a non-RP nation ranked in the 20s, then how is it fair to see that effort taken completely away for the sake of a new ranking probably somewhere around 180? I would like to see way for those nations to retain at least a part of their hard work.

Based on my performance the last two cups, all they would have to do is draw a group with me.

No showstoppers here, for me

[New Montreal States]

I also applaud the non-degrading bonus. RL has a way of dictating and limiting participation at times and I find it unfair for bonuses of those who can be on every day to be maxed out while a nation with four (just an example) solid RPs early gets no bonus when RL keeps them away for a few days. I think at times that people over rate the effectiveness of the RP bonus. With either major scorinator rank and random seem to pull through just fine. See Starblaydia and Chenkorya for proof.

My issue is with the complete reset of the bonus following the group stage. If the goal is to allow an unranked side the possibility of equaling the KPBs of a non-RP nation ranked in the 20s, then how is it fair to see that effort taken completely away for the sake of a new ranking probably somewhere around 180? I would like to see way for those nations to retain at least a part of their hard work.

I know both of you will be excellent hosts. Good luck.

I agree with all of this. Without some carryover, teams that RPed consistently through qualifiers and teams that coasted on rank and RAND and end up tied on points with teams that coasted on rank and RP get the same outcome as the players who didn't write anything during qualifiers, which is unfair.

[Vilita]

I also applaud the non-degrading bonus. RL has a way of dictating and limiting participation at times and I find it unfair for bonuses of those who can be on every day to be maxed out while a nation with four (just an example) solid RPs early gets no bonus when RL keeps them away for a few days. I think at times that people over rate the effectiveness of the RP bonus. With either major scorinator rank and random seem to pull through just fine. See Starblaydia and Chenkorya for proof.

My issue is with the complete reset of the bonus following the group stage. If the goal is to allow an unranked side the possibility of equaling the KPBs of a non-RP nation ranked in the 20s, then how is it fair to see that effort taken completely away for the sake of a new ranking probably somewhere around 180? I would like to see way for those nations to retain at least a part of their hard work.

I know both of you will be excellent hosts. Good luck.

I agree with all of this. Without some carryover, teams that RPed consistently through qualifiers and teams that coasted on rank and RAND and end up tied on points with teams that coasted on rank and RP get the same outcome as the players who didn't write anything during qualifiers, which is unfair.

The majority of World Cup's that have been contested to date have used this style, though.

Typically, whenever rankings are updated, RP bonus is reset. I liked the idea of trying to have some RP Bonus carrying over last cup and see how it worked out - but I had a high rank and a high RP bonus and didn't end up winning a single match in the world cup finals. Thats why there are three R's, I guess, and I'm just as happy to go back to the normal system of resetting RP bonus when the ranks are reset as the bid proposes.

[Cassadaigua]

I don't like the below for World Cup qualifying. Maybe doable with other tournaments, but not here.

"(Should it become clear that more than 180 nations will seek entry, we have prepared additional extreme solutions that incorporate single-round-robin schedules with balanced home-vs-away pairings. For example, 15 groups of 15 would accommodate 227 teams playing 14 matches across 15 matchdays with no playoffs. We are committed to a policy of inclusion in all circumstances.)"

Sure, you can balance them so its four home games and four road games.
But if the team from pot 2 is home to the seed in pot 1,3,4 and away to 5,6,7; and the team from pot 3 is home to 5,6,7 and away to 1,2,and 4; is that really FAIR?!

[Saugeais]

OK, starting from the top.

@Liventia, we like a short qualifying schedule, and we've been due for one for some time now. As for the second part, having no RP degradation, to me, means that everyone can feasibly be in the running for a Finals berth no matter how much or how little they RP, and all of that could be dictated in part by RL events as made mention in ASMV's post. However, the bonuses they receive are, of course, host's discretion and in no way, shape, or form guarantee a free ride into the Finals.

@Legalese, we can't foresee how many signups we are going to have. In fact, while writing this up, 3 more nations have joined the fray. Pasarga and I will watch that thread constantly and make a final decision when the time comes, but for no we honestly can't give you a grouping format set in stone.

@ASMV, I'm going to discuss this matter more with Pasarga, but the initial purpose of the RP bonus reset is due to the re-ranking of nations after qualifying, and that in itself is thought to be the keeping some of the KPB points accrued in qualifying for the newer nations.

@New Montreal States, Random is random, sometimes, no matter what the RPing from new and old nations constitute, and we have no control over that. You, yourself, should be aware of this.

@Cass, I don't think I fully understand what you are saying here. Could you please elaborate on what you are explaining?

[Sangti]

I don't like the below for World Cup qualifying. Maybe doable with other tournaments, but not here.

"(Should it become clear that more than 180 nations will seek entry, we have prepared additional extreme solutions that incorporate single-round-robin schedules with balanced home-vs-away pairings. For example, 15 groups of 15 would accommodate 227 teams playing 14 matches across 15 matchdays with no playoffs. We are committed to a policy of inclusion in all circumstances.)"

Sure, you can balance them so its four home games and four road games.
But if the team from pot 2 is home to the seed in pot 1,3,4 and away to 5,6,7; and the team from pot 3 is home to 5,6,7 and away to 1,2,and 4; is that really FAIR?!

I think what Cass says is if there is only one round of matches and home advantage applies, some of the nations would be at home to lower ranked teams and be away to higher ranked ones and vice versa, which makes the draw for the qualifying groups unfair to some nations.

If that is the case though, matches in the qualifying round, if you prefer to use this, should be played in a neutral venue hosted by nations in the group other than the two nations in concern. =)

[Valanora]

Suageais has answered everything well, I'd just like to expand a bit further.

Our preferred format, should the numbers allow it, is definitely the 30x6. It has been far too many tournaments since there has been a tournament where qualifying wasn't 14 or more matchdays. A shorter tournament we believe is a more beneficial way of avoiding RP burnout as can happen during such marathon qualifying sessions. However, given that there really is no way right now to pin down exactly what the final entrant number will be, we can't explicitly say that it will be the one being used.

As for the reset after qualifying, well that has been the traditional practice for as long as I have been here, if you were to use post qualifying ranks. There's also been fully cumulative RP bonus tournaments, where you kept whatever you earned through the qualifying and into the finals, but not combined with the use of post qualifying ranks for the finals. It would be a double dip/reward and it is something that surely is not beneficial to the tournament as a whole from our outlook.

[New Montreal States]

@ASMV, I'm going to discuss this matter more with Pasarga, but the initial purpose of the RP bonus reset is due to the re-ranking of nations after qualifying, and that in itself is thought to be the keeping some of the KPB points accrued in qualifying for the newer nations.

@New Montreal States, Random is random, sometimes, no matter what the RPing from new and old nations constitute, and we have no control over that. You, yourself, should be aware of this.

I am aware of this! It doesn't answer my point, though. What you said to ASMV is true; but it doesn't give much, if any, of a boost to nations that have been around long enough to have a full three tournaments in their KPB rank. And it gives roughly the same boost to nations that qualified and RPed and nations that qualified and didn't RP.

As for the reset after qualifying, well that has been the traditional practice for as long as I have been here, if you were to use post qualifying ranks. There's also been fully cumulative RP bonus tournaments, where you kept whatever you earned through the qualifying and into the finals, but not combined with the use of post qualifying ranks for the finals. It would be a double dip/reward and it is something that surely is not beneficial to the tournament as a whole from our outlook.

The re-rankings stop being much of a reward once you've got three tournaments under your belt, and do not necessarily correlate with qualification RPing or lack thereof. New and almost-new nations benefit the most from it, and they tend to end up in the CoH anyway.

[Cassadaigua]

@Cass, I don't think I fully understand what you are saying here. Could you please elaborate on what you are explaining?

I'll spell it out differently with a hypothetical group. In ( ) are the rank of each team.

A (10)
B (40)
C (60)
D (100)
E (150)
F (180)
G (220)

Team B is home to A, C, D. Away to E, F, and G.
Team C is home to E, F, G. Away to A, B, and D.

Each team is home three times and away three times. But are they really playing the same schedule difficulty wise?
That's why I don't really like this idea. It's not a vote-breaker, but I just don't think this works for World Cup Qualifying. NSCAA or something, fine, but not here, in my opinion. If this is needed, I would prefer the neutral venue suggestion, but most probably wouldn't like that.

[Legalese]

Suageais has answered everything well, I'd just like to expand a bit further.

Our preferred format, should the numbers allow it, is definitely the 30x6. It has been far too many tournaments since there has been a tournament where qualifying wasn't 14 or more matchdays. A shorter tournament we believe is a more beneficial way of avoiding RP burnout as can happen during such marathon qualifying sessions. However, given that there really is no way right now to pin down exactly what the final entrant number will be, we can't explicitly say that it will be the one being used.

As I realize that my original comments were a bit harsh (my fault for being maybe a touch too blunt at the time), but this was almost exactly what I was hoping for. Not a set in stone plan - that's too much to ask for any group-type format - but at least an understanding on the preferred format (i.e. a focus towards more groups of fewer teams vs. less groups of more teams, etc.), and an insight into what the hosts are thinking, in order to inform the voters of what can be expected as we get closer to a realistic count.

Thank you Valanora for that information.

[Karditan]

As for the reset after qualifying, well that has been the traditional practice for as long as I have been here, if you were to use post qualifying ranks. There's also been fully cumulative RP bonus tournaments, where you kept whatever you earned through the qualifying and into the finals, but not combined with the use of post qualifying ranks for the finals. It would be a double dip/reward and it is something that surely is not beneficial to the tournament as a whole from our outlook.

Erm... I don't think that really applies with the massive gaps that appear as you go up in the rankings. I doubt the bump from qualifying is really as big as you think it is, unless the qualified nation is ranked below 90 or so. Perhaps a compete carry over might be overkill--but surely it would be reasonable to carry over say, half the RP bonus accrued over the Qualifiers? A third, if you're more conservative? It's just a bit disheartening to RP your brains out during qualifiers just to get into the WC, then get blasted in the group stage because you're barely a matchup against the three teams above you despite the fact that they've barely RPed, if at all. Being able to ride the qual-bonus-wave would give the underdog at least a decent chance at picking up a W from a non-RPing third seed. And it would also give the high-ranked veteran who overcame any burnout they've been dealing with to pump out a bunch of quality qualifying roleplay the edge they deserve for that effort.

[Liventia]

I'm in favour of the proposed bonus reset after qualifying; Val is right about it being a traditional feature used in a majority of WCs to date anyway. And my own opinion is that not resetting the bonus, or not massively degrading it (I would not support carrying over any more than 25% of qualifying RP bonus), would put too much weight on RP. If people are RPing just to get the bonus rather than "for the fun of it" (which was the whole point of it in the first place) then we're – imo at least – drifting significantly away from the original premise of the WC, which was just a bit of fun.

[New Sideburn]

I'm not exactly qualified, but a carryover of 25% sounds reasonable, like it offers the best of both worlds; it acknowledges previous efforts without forcing people to rely on them.
But yeah, I'm not really fussed either way. All sides have merits, though a full carryover would be ridiculous.

[Saintland]

Personally, I'm more worried about the format than the RP bonus. I liked the lengthy qualifying, which I thought worked to my benefit and I really don't like the idea that only the group winner would qualify for the World Cup. I think that would be much more imbalanced than a single round-robin. Is it really fair that some people will draw a #1 seed that is ranked in the top 10 and extremely active (virtually guaranteed to qualify) while others will draw a top seed that is ranked in the 20s and inactive? There's a massive gap between #1 and #30. On the post-qualifying rankings (the most recently posted rankings), the difference between #1 and #30 is just over 31 ranking points. That's larger than the difference between #30 and unranked!

Using me as an example, based on what I've estimated for my post-qualifying ranking points (basically a typical #3 seed) and assuming a bonus of around 25 points (mid-20s in most recent rankings), my ranking + RP, if I attained the maximum bonus, would be around that of the 10th ranked team at the end of qualifying. For somebody ranked in the low 30s (the best #2 seeds), their ranking + RP at the end of qualifying, assuming maximum bonus, would be roughly eqivalent to #3 and still short of the #1 team. This means that Audioslavia (the presumed new #1) can probably just coast to the finals without RPing and nobody in his group can beat him.

If anything, I think the RP bonus needs to be at least double what is proposed in the bid, if 30x6 or any other format where only the group winner advances, is used. I can understand letting the top 10 coast into the World Cup without RPing at all if runners-up can either qualify directly or through playoffs. If only the group winner qualifies, that means that the draw is the most important scorination of qualifying and I don't think that's the way World Cup qualifying is supposed to be.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Ok. First lets not turn this into a debate over RP bonuses being carried over. The potential hosts have given their decision and any other discussion on that matter should be made in the WCDT, hence the Discussion part on the name.

I would disagree with Saintland that a longer campaign is better for lower ranked nations. It has been my experience when a "Cinderella" is making a good run, the second half of the qualifiers come along and steal the damn slipper from their foot. A shorter campaign actually rewards the upset much more by granting fewer matches for rank to outpace them.

[New Montreal States]

I'm spending a long weekend in a place with no internet, so I'm going to have my final say. First, Karditan is spot on in his remarks.

I'm in favour of the proposed bonus reset after qualifying; Val is right about it being a traditional feature used in a majority of WCs to date anyway. And my own opinion is that not resetting the bonus, or not massively degrading it (I would not support carrying over any more than 25% of qualifying RP bonus), would put too much weight on RP. If people are RPing just to get the bonus rather than "for the fun of it" (which was the whole point of it in the first place) then we're – imo at least – drifting significantly away from the original premise of the WC, which was just a bit of fun.

I'd like to point out that we just finished a tournament where RP bonus carried over at 50%; that the sky did not fall in, the seas did not boil, and that rank and RAND remained the second most and most important factor in outcomes, respectively.

Also, since when is it fun to have a WC full of inactive people who coasted on rank and RAND, while good and active writers are shunted off to the CoH over and over again until they quit playing?

EDIT: Ninja'd by ASMV. I would add that both he and Saintland are right, in a sense: ASMV is right in that a short schedule and a few upsets are a good way for Cinderellas to break into the WC proper; and Saintland is right in that building up an RP bonus over long qualifiers is a good way for new players to pull ahead of the bottom-of-the-group flotsam and get themselves (on average) into a better position to make some noise over the long run.

[Valanora]

@Cass, in the extreme unlikelihood of the scenario taking place in which a single round robin schedule was used, then of course the venue would be set to neutral. As I have already stated however, that is not our preferred format and is only there in case that scenario does play out.

At everyone else in regards to the RP bonus carryover, as ASMV has pointed out, this is not the place for that discussion, and we would appreciate it if that discussion could please be moved to the WCDT. Saugeais and I, if voted on, have made our position clear on how and why we are using the proposed RP bonuses.

[Audioslavia]

Just before I start, I'd just like to say I like this bid, trust you two totally and commend your efforts to find a solution to the pretty-much unsolvable problem of whittling down 200+ entrants to 30 in a way that is fair, quick and interesting.

With regards to the idea for larger groups to accommodate all entrants, but played as a single round-robin, I don't mind the idea, but would welcome a larger playoff system to come after. For example, the top sides would qualify outright, the second-placed sides could play one playoff game at home against the winner of a playoff for third/fourth placed teams.

Such a system would be utterly redundant with smaller groups and a home/away round robin, of course, but the single round robin system could work out to be a little less fair for some teams, and I imagine fervent complaints and heated arguments would be unavoidable. Creating a larger playoff bracket and giving more teams at least a glimmer of hope might be enough to appease those who feel screwed over by the system.

Playing each game of a single round-robin on 'neutral' territory would be a little unrealistic for me, as would designating games to be arbitrarily played 'home' or 'away' but with no weighting as such in the scorinator.

Finally, for the large-groups format, have you considered the possibility of scorinating two matches at a time during qualifying? "International weeks" are part of the RL calendar, with WC qualifiers played on the Tuesday night and Friday night (or Wednesday night and Saturday afternoon, before they changed it), with a break of a few weeks in between each double-header. Just a thought.

[Polar Islandstates]

Finally, for the large-groups format, have you considered the possibility of scorinating two matches at a time during qualifying? "International weeks" are part of the RL calendar, with WC qualifiers played on the Tuesday night and Friday night (or Wednesday night and Saturday afternoon, before they changed it), with a break of a few weeks in between each double-header. Just a thought.

Not going to lie, I'm currently enjoying a "why did I never think of that" moment. This definitely deserves exploration. If not in this bid, then in the future.

I'd entirely trust you two to make the right decisions regarding bonus and format, and I don't /really/ see anything here as a vote-breaker. I do dislike the idea of 30 six-team groups, though. Note that Valanora's last WC bid lost in the vote, perhaps on this issue. If you're the only bid and that's what you go with then obviously its preferable to a RON, but this:

Is it really fair that some people will draw a #1 seed that is ranked in the top 10 and extremely active (virtually guaranteed to qualify) while others will draw a top seed that is ranked in the 20s and inactive? There's a massive gap between #1 and #30. On the post-qualifying rankings (the most recently posted rankings), the difference between #1 and #30 is just over 31 ranking points. That's larger than the difference between #30 and unranked!

...is eye-raising to say the least. It would also make RAND# far more significant in the scorinations. Regardless of its equality in the balance of the Three R's, only ten matches means a handful of 0.001s in scorination will ruin anyone's campaign before it starts.

[Vilita]

Finally, for the large-groups format, have you considered the possibility of scorinating two matches at a time during qualifying? "International weeks" are part of the RL calendar, with WC qualifiers played on the Tuesday night and Friday night (or Wednesday night and Saturday afternoon, before they changed it), with a break of a few weeks in between each double-header. Just a thought.

Not going to lie, I'm currently enjoying a "why did I never think of that" moment. This definitely deserves exploration. If not in this bid, then in the future.

I also like the 2 matchdays-per-scorination idea

[Audioslavia]

Though, as an addendum, the last one-to-three matchdays should be played one at a time. For drama purposes.