The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[Pretty Awesome Persons]

Didn't allow a single goal in the CoH group stages and ended up with a +13 GD.
Feels good man.

[Qazox]

One year, two years, four years, real time, in-sync, out-of-sync, or just outside of time entirely, you'll find all manner of scales happily co-existing.

Raises hand.

Though for practical purposes of working out the Archregimancy's Orthodox liturgical calendar, I use RL real time (Gregorian calendar for saints and Christmas; Julian calendar for Easter - the combination used by the Orthodox Church in America, who have the best English-language website for this sort of thing).

But otherwise the Dreamed Realm nations exist outside of both ordinary time and ordinary space.

I think the cumulative advice Stachland is getting here is 'suit yourself'.

Technically I use the beginning of the BoF to set my IC calendar. Once one starts, i bump my current year up 4 years (to maintain the traditional World Cup=4 years cycle). Which means I go through 2/3 presidents a RL year and 1 or 2 Holy Oxen (Qazox' version of the Pope) a RL year.

[Bears Armed]

I sync together all tournaments in my advancing of time. So the gap between World Cup 54 and 55 could be 2 years; 55 and 56 be 1 year; and 56 and 57 be 4 years.

Whereas I have my nation existing at different dates [relative to RL] for different series of tournaments, because for football it's been advancing at 4 years per World Cup cycle since we entered BoF31 in 2'008 whereas for athletics & such it's been advancing at 4 years per Olympic cycle since we entered the 1st Summer Olympics in 2'006: I've lost track of the WorldVision Song Contest, not having participated in that for a while...

Bears, I think you just described a KPB-calculating nightmare.

Hwell, I did say that those play-offs wouldn't count for KPB purposes, just as any play-offs that got held during the regular qualifiers haven't been counted in the past... However, having slept on the matter, I do see that my suggestion would have seen a lot of the lower-ranking teams being dropped right back down to 0 KPB if they lost the play-offs a couple of times in a row and so didn't get into the qualifiers at all, so my next suggestion becomes _

A maximum of 120 teams in the "actual" qualifiers, with half of those places set aside for the highest-ranked applicants as in my earlier suggestion. The other half would then be distributed between the best teams from the BoF and the best teams from a series of "preliminary" qualifiers in which those of the lower-ranking teams that aren't in the BoF would have participated more-or-less simultaneously with the latter tournament, with the ratio between BoF entrants and "preliminary qualifiers" entrants reflected in the numbers of each that go forwards...


(My opposition to the idea of keeping the "actual qualifiers" stage as large as it's become recently is based partly on the difficulty of maintaining RP over so many games -- especially if one's RL circumstances mean that [as is ususally the case for me nowadays] one is unlikely to get match reports postable before one's opponents do so, and therefore can't rely largely on that type of RP -- and partly on concerns about the IC difficulty of reconciling those demands on the players' time with their Club committments back home...)

[Chetkosk]

My opinions, spoilered for all your tl;dr needs.

So, Bears, 60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams. Then the next 30 would go to the top 30 performing teams in the most recent BoF. That leaves 30 places to be filled by the rest of the NS Sports community.
What about a nation that doesn't want to compete in the BoF but is already an accomplished RP'er? They could end up unable to qualify at all because of the fact they are otherwise unranked - and competing in the BoF at this point becomes more about qualifying for the WC than about encouraging roleplay, which would be a sad turn of events.

Let's not forget that NS WC qualifying goes by much quicker than the real deal
...
...
Actually, that is an interesting point - the 2010 qualifiers saw 205 (I think) entrants, so if the real world can cope with that number, why can't we?
Simply increase the number of groups and decrease their sizes until the number of match days is sufficiently small to not strain the RP abilities of nations. If the resulting number of qualified teams is too high, then hold play-offs to determine the final 32. I think this would be much simpler, and the play-offs would appear to be a part of the qualifying process, rather than a separate tournament to "qualify for the qualifiers", a bemusing concept.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is rather difficult to exclude non-RP'ing nations without the system being somehow detrimental to new, active users or older, lower ranked users.

I do have a few questions to clarify a few points:
How many teams does the BoF usually consist of each cycle?
How easy is it for a high KPB ranked nation (say, top 30) to go up or down? Would they shift several places in one cycle? How does the fluctuation of ranks change as you go down the list?
What number of match days, exactly, do people consider as too long for qualifiers?

[Bears Armed]

My opinions, spoilered for all your tl;dr needs.
So, Bears, 60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams. Then the next 30 would go to the top 30 performing teams in the most recent BoF. That leaves 30 places to be filled by the rest of the NS Sports community.
What about a nation that doesn't want to compete in the BoF but is already an accomplished RP'er? They could end up unable to qualify at all because of the fact they are otherwise unranked - and competing in the BoF at this point becomes more about qualifying for the WC than about encouraging roleplay, which would be a sad turn of events.

No, you've misunderstood.
60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams out of those who have actually signed-up for this Cup, excluding the hosts if (as is fairly usual) they fall into that range.
The remaining 60 places would then be split proportionately between the BoF entrants and the other WC applicants, taking the best of each according to B0F or "preliminary qualifier" results accordingly: If the other teams applying outnumbered the BoF entrants 2:1 then they'd get 2/3 of thsoe places, if they outnumbered them 3:1 then they'd get 3/4 of those places, and so on...


(More to follow in an hour or so...)

[Eastfield Lodge]

My opinions, spoilered for all your tl;dr needs.

So, Bears, 60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams. Then the next 30 would go to the top 30 performing teams in the most recent BoF. That leaves 30 places to be filled by the rest of the NS Sports community.
What about a nation that doesn't want to compete in the BoF but is already an accomplished RP'er? They could end up unable to qualify at all because of the fact they are otherwise unranked - and competing in the BoF at this point becomes more about qualifying for the WC than about encouraging roleplay, which would be a sad turn of events.

Let's not forget that NS WC qualifying goes by much quicker than the real deal
...
...
Actually, that is an interesting point - the 2010 qualifiers saw 205 (I think) entrants, so if the real world can cope with that number, why can't we?
Simply increase the number of groups and decrease their sizes until the number of match days is sufficiently small to not strain the RP abilities of nations. If the resulting number of qualified teams is too high, then hold play-offs to determine the final 32. I think this would be much simpler, and the play-offs would appear to be a part of the qualifying process, rather than a separate tournament to "qualify for the qualifiers", a bemusing concept.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is rather difficult to exclude non-RP'ing nations without the system being somehow detrimental to new, active users or older, lower ranked users.

I do have a few questions to clarify a few points:
How many teams does the BoF usually consist of each cycle?
How easy is it for a high KPB ranked nation (say, top 30) to go up or down? Would they shift several places in one cycle? How does the fluctuation of ranks change as you go down the list?
What number of match days, exactly, do people consider as too long for qualifiers?

1: Usually 32.
2: Under the current system, top 30 teams only really fall out of that category if they fail to qualify for the World Cup, which even without RPing is relatively uncommon. As for going up, it just depends on how many matches they win in the whole tournament, but it's quite easy if you put in some really good RPs. World Cup winners, from whatever position they were at, always jump to first (well, I haven't seen a recent case contrary to that). Going down the list, say, past 40th (~16 KPB), the differences between the ranks get smaller and smaller until you get like nine nations with exactly the same number of KPB points towards the end of the lists. So one good World Cup cycle could see a nation jump at least 100 places from unranked to ~100th.
3: Opinion varies, but I'd say anything above 18 (groups of 10) would be seen as too much by a lot of people.

As for your question as to why we can't manage that many nations when the real world can, it's really only because of time. IRL, qualifying for a World Cup spans three years, whereas we're trying to fit a whole World Cup cycle into two-three months. Also, RL qualifying is really region specific, and you don't see all 205 squaring off in a qualification system like we use here.

[Starblaydia]

60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams out of those who have actually signed-up for this Cup, excluding the hosts if (as is fairly usual) they fall into that range.
The remaining 60 places would then be split proportionately between the BoF entrants and the other WC applicants, taking the best of each according to B0F or "preliminary qualifier" results accordingly: If the other teams applying outnumbered the BoF entrants 2:1 then they'd get 2/3 of thsoe places, if they outnumbered them 3:1 then they'd get 3/4 of those places, and so on...

That's beyond awful. No, just no.

[Valanora]

I've recently been made aware of a system that would allow for all current nations signed up for the World Cup and additional four entrants the ability to participate in the World Cup with our preferred format of a shortened qualifying stage. Given that the purpose of mine and Sorthern's bid was to cut down the "marathon" qualifying and not to exclude nations by and large, would those that endorse our bid be shocked and appalled if we were to amend the bid in light of this revelation?

[Bears Armed]

60 places would automatically go to the top 60 KPB ranked teams out of those who have actually signed-up for this Cup, excluding the hosts if (as is fairly usual) they fall into that range.
The remaining 60 places would then be split proportionately between the BoF entrants and the other WC applicants, taking the best of each according to B0F or "preliminary qualifier" results accordingly: If the other teams applying outnumbered the BoF entrants 2:1 then they'd get 2/3 of thsoe places, if they outnumbered them 3:1 then they'd get 3/4 of those places, and so on...

That's beyond awful. No, just no.

Short, but not very explanatory.
So is it the actual details of ratioes suggested to which you object so strongly, or are you opposed to 'seeding' systems in general? For example, what about the system currently used in the (RL English) 'FA Cup'? If you accept that that can have several [knockout] rounds during which the lower-ranked teams reduce each other's numbers before the higher-ranked teams are added to the draw then why couldn't the NSWC have a "preliminary qualifiers" stage for the same reason?

[Virabia]

That's beyond awful. No, just no.

Short, but not very explanatory.
So is it the actual details of ratioes suggested to which you object so strongly, or are you opposed to 'seeding' systems in general? For example, what about the system currently used in the (RL English) 'FA Cup'? If you accept that that can have several [knockout] rounds during which the lower-ranked teams reduce each other's numbers before the higher-ranked teams are added to the draw then why couldn't the NSWC have a "preliminary qualifiers" stage for the same reason?

Would it be fair to have your WC be only one or two matches. Thats hardly good for RP and I know that if a system like this were implemented I think a lot of people would drop out of the WC (myself included)

[Starblaydia]

That's beyond awful. No, just no.

Short, but not very explanatory.
So is it the actual details of ratioes suggested to which you object so strongly, or are you opposed to 'seeding' systems in general? For example, what about the system currently used in the (RL English) 'FA Cup'? If you accept that that can have several [knockout] rounds during which the lower-ranked teams reduce each other's numbers before the higher-ranked teams are added to the draw then why couldn't the NSWC have a "preliminary qualifiers" stage for the same reason?

I object entirely to the idea that you 'apply' for the World Cup, rather than signing up, and get in based upon a proportional split between current and newbie entrants, which itself is an entirely random system to work things out. The WC Sign-ups threads would continually be finished with "I'm sorry, new nation, you didn't get in because you were over the proportion of entrants outside the top 60 who aren't previous WC entrants". That's completely ludicrous.

This is only brought about because Val/Snorth's Cap was, for me, set too low at 122. Considering we had 170 entrants (not applicants, remember?) last time around. I'm not personally fussed by marathon qualifying sessions, though once you get above 20 Matchdays, it can get a little unfair for the lower-ranked teams who are trying to get in.

Assuming they're not outside of this appalling golden ratio idea, that is.

[Bears Armed]

Short, but not very explanatory.
So is it the actual details of ratioes suggested to which you object so strongly, or are you opposed to 'seeding' systems in general? For example, what about the system currently used in the (RL English) 'FA Cup'? If you accept that that can have several [knockout] rounds during which the lower-ranked teams reduce each other's numbers before the higher-ranked teams are added to the draw then why couldn't the NSWC have a "preliminary qualifiers" stage for the same reason?

I object entirely to the idea that you 'apply' for the World Cup, rather than signing up, and get in based upon a proportional split between current and newbie entrants, which itself is an entirely random system to work things out. The WC Sign-ups threads would continually be finished with "I'm sorry, new nation, you didn't get in because you were over the proportion of entrants outside the top 60 who aren't previous WC entrants". That's completely ludicrous.

You're mis-reading my post. ALL of the sign-ups who weren't in either the top 60 or the BoF would get into the "preliminary" qualifiers, with no team getting turned away altogether as currently happens with any outright 'cap' on the number of sign-ups accepted, and it's the most successful of the teams from that stage of the qualifiers who would then procede (along with the most successful teams from the BoF) on into the "main" qualifiers where they'd also meet the higher-ranked teams: It wouldn't be a case of any of those who fell outside a certain proportion of the sign-ups being turned away altogether, as you seem to be taking it.
Isn't that less ludicrous than Newmanistan's suggestion, which Val/Snorth originally accepted?!?

So how do you feel about the FA Cup? Would you want the draw in that to include ALL of the teams, including the highest-ranked ones, right from the opening round? This would still seem to me to be a comparable situation...

This is only brought about because Val/Snorth's Cap was, for me, set too low at 122.

It's partly been brought about for that reason, because I also think that with the numbers of sign-ups we're now getting more than 122 teams should have some opportunity to try & qualify, but I had already said that I felt the number of match-days was getting a bit much before Val/Snorth made that announcement.

[Starblaydia]

You're mis-reading my post.

Perhaps if you didn't make the majority of your posts practically illegible with several different annoying ways of STRESSING certain words in your posts, they might be clearer. Your clarification of it is much better.

ALL of the sign-ups who weren't in either the top 60 or the BoF would get into the "preliminary" qualifiers, with no team getting turned away altogether as currently happens with any outright 'cap' on the number of sign-ups accepted: It wouldn't be a case of any of those who fell outside a certain proportion of the sign-ups being turned away altogether, as you seem to be taking it.
Isn't that less ludicrous than Newmanistan's suggestion, which Val/Snorth originally accepted?!?
...

So how do you feel about the FA Cup? Would you want the draw in that to include ALL of the teams, including the highest-ranked ones, right from the opening round? This would still seem to me to be a comparable situation...

The oldest knock-out Cup competition in the world, open to every club in a particular country who cares to try for it, has very little to do with a bunch of net geeks participating by reacting to the generation of random numbers. We want everyone to participate to the fullest possible extent, and only fail to reward those who don't bother to write RPs. Knocking people out of our World Cup at an earlier stage than the end of the Qualifiers is not something I agree with - I didn't agree with it when TBI/Cass did it, either, because it's simply not the World Cup.

I hadn't read Newmanistan's suggestion, but my suggestion upon seeing the list of who's missed out on the soft cap of 122 is simply to raise the cap. Proposing trimming nearly a third of the previous WC's numbers was a mistake, imho, and I'd welcome a system that let in the 15 or so current nations, both now and old, who would otherwise miss out.

It's partly been brought about for that reason, because I also think that with the numbers of sign-ups we're now getting more than 122 teams should have some opportunity to try & qualify, but I had already said that I felt the number of match-days was getting a bit much before Val/Snorth made that announcement.

OK then, what's your golden number of Matchdays that we're not allowed to go over? I say 22 as the maximum, with 18 as a preference.

[Krytenia]

18 would be good as a max for me too - I'd prefer 12-18 MDs, but I fear with the number of teams participating that 12-day qualis are gone for good.

[Eastfield Lodge]

18 would be good as a max for me too - I'd prefer 12-18 MDs, but I fear with the number of teams participating that 12-day qualis are gone for good.

Currently sign-ups are at ~133, so for 18 matchdays, we only need 19 more nations.

[Krytenia]

18 would be good as a max for me too - I'd prefer 12-18 MDs, but I fear with the number of teams participating that 12-day qualis are gone for good.

Currently sign-ups are at ~133, so for 18 matchdays, we only need 19 more nations.

Aye, 152 would be a more sensible cap. 15x10 would do nicely, I think; I remember my first WC had 10-team groups, and it was quite exciting for a wide-eyed young RPer, against the likes of Oglethorpia and Dennisov, and why has everything gone sepia?

[Eastfield Lodge]

Currently sign-ups are at ~133, so for 18 matchdays, we only need 19 more nations.

Aye, 152 would be a more sensible cap. 15x10 would do nicely, I think; I remember my first WC had 10-team groups, and it was quite exciting for a wide-eyed young RPer, against the likes of Oglethorpia and Dennisov, and why has everything gone sepia?

Be glad it isn't black and white.

[Starblaydia]

Aye, 152 would be a more sensible cap. 15x10 would do nicely, I think; I remember my first WC had 10-team groups, and it was quite exciting for a wide-eyed young RPer, against the likes of Oglethorpia and Dennisov, and why has everything gone sepia?

Be glad it isn't black and white.

Writing on the cave wall isn't just in black and white, you know

[Virabia]

Currently sign-ups are at ~133, so for 18 matchdays, we only need 19 more nations.

Aye, 152 would be a more sensible cap. 15x10 would do nicely, I think; I remember my first WC had 10-team groups, and it was quite exciting for a wide-eyed young RPer, against the likes of Oglethorpia and Dennisov, and why has everything gone sepia?

I'd agree. As long as interest is this high, 152 is a good number. Long enough to get decent storylines going short enough that your not burnt out half way through

[Eastfield Lodge]

Aye, 152 would be a more sensible cap. 15x10 would do nicely, I think; I remember my first WC had 10-team groups, and it was quite exciting for a wide-eyed young RPer, against the likes of Oglethorpia and Dennisov, and why has everything gone sepia?

I'd agree. As long as interest is this high, 152 is a good number. Long enough to get decent storylines going short enough that your not burnt out half way through

Or if interest collapses and only four more nations sign up, 137 teams also gives 18 matchdays (the same as my first World Cup).

[Cafundeu]

Voting on the Amendment proposals is now open.

After this round of voting, we'll get directly to BoF/WC voting, waiting just a few days from the end of this round. So, any more people wishing to bid for one of these competitions be warned of the deadline of 10/6, which is when I'll post the results of this voting.

[The Babbage Islands]

It's a tough call. Eighteen MDs is really a little too long, IMO, but 122 teams too likely to exclude.

I'm looking at twenty-group formats where the first-place teams qualify and the second-place teams all have a play-in game or double-leg tie to advance. (The play-ins could be scheduled to scorinate along with post-qual friendlies, adding nothing to the number of days expected.) 20 x 8 would cover 162 teams in 14 MDs plus the play-in. And for a slightly smaller crowd 20x7 handles 142 teams in the same length of time.

But play-ins have their own drawbacks.

[Krytenia]

Moving house on Saturday, and will likely be sans internet connection until the end of the month. Apologies in advance if I miss RPing.

[Starblaydia]

DBC 17 signups are now open, thanking you.

[Bears Armed]

OK then, what's your golden number of Matchdays that we're not allowed to go over? I say 22 as the maximum, with 18 as a preference.

Hr'rmm...
52 weeks in a year, allow 32 for the National League with those split between the Spring & Autumn sessions and most WC-related games normally occurring in the Summer gap; the two gaps don't have to be exactly equal in length, of course, but there are practical reasons why we can't push the season too far into the Winter, or have all 20 weeks of "gap" in the Summer; try to allow a full week for each qualifier or friendly, not only because of travel times & possible needs for acclimatisation but also because some nations' teams simply might not be able to play on particular days for one reason or another anyway; and we hrreally do want to keep some friendlies against traditional rivals in the schedule, as well as the actual qualifiers, because the increasing number of teams entering the contest as a whole reduces the chances that we'd get to face those sides otherwise; so say a twelve-week 'WC Season' in each of the two years, say at least two friendlies included in that for each year of qualifiers (with the 'pre-qualifiers' ones pushed back into the BoF/DBC year instead...), and a schedule like WC55's was & is just manageable without clashing with the League but any increase on that could be a bit awkward... and cutting the number of teams per group to 8 or 9, for 16 or 18 qualifying matches respectively per World Cup, would definitely be preferable.