WC50: Krytenia/Holy Empire Bid Thread

[The Babbage Islands]

Frankly, I don't see a problem with 3 points per matchday.

• First, nobody pulls down maximums every day.
• Second, two 3.0s per week beats seven 0.8s.
• Third, it's a question of balance. Rank matters. A lot. And it should. But unheralded teams do go on runs. Established powers do sometimes go soft. It should be possible for a team, through RP, to be playing for a short time way over their heads.

A very strong case can be made that a team, by roleplaying consistently through 14-18 rounds of qualifying, should be able to match up on near-even terms with a great power who is sitting on their laurels in that last couple of games. Look at it this way -- if the #1 team in the world suddenly ceased to practise, quit putting effort into their matches, and so forth, how long would they stay #1? Talent and accumulated experience would carry them to a degree, but not forever.

As long as hosts are judicious in using the full range of scores, and the accumulated benefit ends with qualifying (replaced by revised rank), where is the problem?

[Somewhereistonia]

PLEASE NOTE

Following discussion with THE, we have decided to lower the RP bonus...slightly. It now stands at 2.5KPB/matchday.

The OP has been edited accordingly.

I think this is a wise decision, it keeps up the high RP bonus, whilst it doesn't push beyond normal limits. It's high, which I like, but it's not experimentally so, which is what it should be for the world cup.

Now I think I can say without reservation that I support this bid. Although more clarification on friendlies would be nice; I feel that friendlies are less important than just about everything else in a bid (I restricted myself to 2 or less relevant friendlies per friendly matchday during wc49).

[Cafundeu]

Now I have a doubt about something, for which I didn't see an answer on the other posts (and nobody asked for it, though, if I read correctly): Are you going to reset the RP bonus after the qualifiers, defending that idea that updated rankings serve this purpose (an idea I strongly oppose to, as the updated rankings award performance, which are a result of scorination, which is ranking + RP + randomness, so it'd be far from a reward from RPing, but I'm not here to discuss this)? Or will you be keeping the accumulated RP bonus from the qualifiers to the World Cup proper, using or not updated rankings?

[Schiavonia]

I think the shift from 3 to 2.5 points per matchday is a completely missing the problem that people like I would have with the bid. Sorry, folks.

[Krytenia]

Now I have a doubt about something, for which I didn't see an answer on the other posts (and nobody asked for it, though, if I read correctly): Are you going to reset the RP bonus after the qualifiers, defending that idea that updated rankings serve this purpose (an idea I strongly oppose to, as the updated rankings award performance, which are a result of scorination, which is ranking + RP + randomness, so it'd be far from a reward from RPing, but I'm not here to discuss this)? Or will you be keeping the accumulated RP bonus from the qualifiers to the World Cup proper, using or not updated rankings?

We'll be keeping the accumulated bonus. Seems silly to remove the bonus halfway through when the potential gain is so high...

[Krytenia]

I think the shift from 3 to 2.5 points per matchday is a completely missing the problem that people like I would have with the bid. Sorry, folks.

That's OK. Thanks for the honesty.

[The Babbage Islands]

Now I have a doubt about something, for which I didn't see an answer on the other posts (and nobody asked for it, though, if I read correctly): Are you going to reset the RP bonus after the qualifiers, defending that idea that updated rankings serve this purpose (an idea I strongly oppose to, as the updated rankings award performance, which are a result of scorination, which is ranking + RP + randomness, so it'd be far from a reward from RPing, but I'm not here to discuss this)? Or will you be keeping the accumulated RP bonus from the qualifiers to the World Cup proper, using or not updated rankings?

There are two good technical reasons to reset KPBs instead of carrying over RP all the way through. One is the possibility of tipping the balance too far in favour of current RP and discounting rank -- at 2.5 points a day times 25 matchdays, as we had last time out, that's a possible 50 points, more than the #1 team in the world (post-qual) had.

The second is more subtle. Using the same example numbers, and adopting the concept that maxpoints in NSFS should be the highest number attainable by an entrant, it would have placed maxpoints for WC 49 at over 100 (CAM was just over 50 KPB at start). We saw what kind of results and concerns were generated with maxpoints at 100.

Obviously all of this can be tweaked by the hosts. In particular, I think that progressive adjustment of maxpoints has merit. Figure maxpoints up through the first half of qualifying, say, then adjust it for the second half based on the leader at that time, then even do the same in the proper. Whatever the adopted plan, the relationship between accumulated RP bonuses and maxpoints needs to be considered.

Just my $.02

[The Archregimancy]

I think the shift from 3 to 2.5 points per matchday is a completely missing the problem that people like I would have with the bid. Sorry, folks.

Posting with the wrong nation...

But I might finesse the point by arguing that it's not so much that we've missed the problem (presumably that some think the proposed RP bonus system unduly punishes those nations who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, may not be able to RP every day) but rather that you don't think the compromise that's been put in place properly addresses that problem.

Given your long WC experience, I appreciate your perspective on the issue. Ultimately, we're not going to be able to keep everyone happy with whatever RP bonus system we propose - as is clearly evidenced by the differing reactions of TBI and Somewhereistonia. I would note in passing that I'm personally unhappy with giving out so much detail about the RP bonus at all. Up until fairly recently, hosts would routinely write something along the lines of "we don't want to give away too much detail about the RP bonus, but we aim to reward quality over quantity". This was to avoid nations RP'ing to gain advantage of the bonus system, and hosts were simply trusted to be fair on the issue. I would have preferred to have stayed with this old-fashioned approach, but Kry strongly feels otherwise, and I deferred to him on this point.

On the plus side, it's arguably a good thing that the two bids take contrasting approaches to the RP bonus, as it allows voters a broader choice of options. If you prefer the competing bid on this particular point, I quite respect your decision.

[Krytenia]

Now I have a doubt about something, for which I didn't see an answer on the other posts (and nobody asked for it, though, if I read correctly): Are you going to reset the RP bonus after the qualifiers, defending that idea that updated rankings serve this purpose (an idea I strongly oppose to, as the updated rankings award performance, which are a result of scorination, which is ranking + RP + randomness, so it'd be far from a reward from RPing, but I'm not here to discuss this)? Or will you be keeping the accumulated RP bonus from the qualifiers to the World Cup proper, using or not updated rankings?

There are two good technical reasons to reset KPBs instead of carrying over RP all the way through. One is the possibility of tipping the balance too far in favour of current RP and discounting rank -- at 2.5 points a day times 25 matchdays, as we had last time out, that's a possible 50 points, more than the #1 team in the world (post-qual) had.

The second is more subtle. Using the same example numbers, and adopting the concept that maxpoints in NSFS should be the highest number attainable by an entrant, it would have placed maxpoints for WC 49 at over 100 (CAM was just over 50 KPB at start). We saw what kind of results and concerns were generated with maxpoints at 100.

Obviously all of this can be tweaked by the hosts. In particular, I think that progressive adjustment of maxpoints has merit. Figure maxpoints up through the first half of qualifying, say, then adjust it for the second half based on the leader at that time, then even do the same in the proper. Whatever the adopted plan, the relationship between accumulated RP bonuses and maxpoints needs to be considered.

Just my $.02

We are planning on putting up the maxpoints in increments; the easiest time to do this would be at the halfway point in qualifying. Assuming a total of 150 teams in qualifying - which, if the case, would be separated into fifteen groups of ten - this would mean a maxpoints of 76.64 in qualifying half #1.

[Krytenia]

OP amended to reflect current cap on entrants. If there's a rush through, however, this may be increased, in increments of 15, to 167 or 182.

152 (15 groups of 10) is our preferred limit; 182 is our absolute limit (15 groups of 12)

[Sarzonia]

This may sound strange coming from someone who has no life, thus RPs rather constantly.

The maximum possible RP bonus is far too extreme for my tastes. I definitely appreciate high RP bonuses for those who deserve them, and part of what makes these games within a game is the fun of writing and reading top notch RPs. However, such a system would only reward those who have the time or the ability to post consistently long, developed RPs on a regular basis. I can see this system benefitting the CAMs and the Dancougars of the world. Those lads probably don't need the extra help.

I also find the whole friendlies scorination issue to be rather unsatisfactory. I don't mind a limit of three friendlies per cycle, of course depending on the workload it provides the host. I've made my objection to one friendly per cycle limits known. I understand that expecting the hosts to scorinate three friendlies per cycle may be offputting considering the demands on their time. However, putting the onus on us to find other people who've scorinated WCC sanctioned events is rather unfair to the rest of us as well.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

This may sound strange coming from someone who has no life, thus RPs rather constantly.

The maximum possible RP bonus is far too extreme for my tastes. I definitely appreciate high RP bonuses for those who deserve them, and part of what makes these games within a game is the fun of writing and reading top notch RPs. However, such a system would only reward those who have the time or the ability to post consistently long, developed RPs on a regular basis. I can see this system benefitting the CAMs and the Dancougars of the world. Those lads probably don't need the extra help.

I also find the whole friendlies scorination issue to be rather unsatisfactory. I don't mind a limit of three friendlies per cycle, of course depending on the workload it provides the host. I've made my objection to one friendly per cycle limits known. I understand that expecting the hosts to scorinate three friendlies per cycle may be offputting considering the demands on their time. However, putting the onus on us to find other people who've scorinated WCC sanctioned events is rather unfair to the rest of us as well.

I respect the difference of opinion regarding RP bonuses.

However, the friendlies issue is perhaps a misunderstanding. The hosts are not saying they will not scorinate friendlies, merely that they reserve the right to turn down the scorination of individual friendly requests depending on the balance of both the general scorination workload and RL workloads for what promises to be a very, very big cup. We are not saying we will not scorinate friendlies.

Where we may regrettably be forced to turn down friendly requests due to these other factors, or where nations may want to participate in more friendlies than usual due to the special nature of this landmark World Cup, we will not force them to find other people who've "scorinated WCC sanctioned events". As I explicitly noted on the previous page (emphasis added):

Similarly, none of the nations on the 'list' [of experienced nations that Krytenia proposes collating] will be obligated to scorinate those friendlies; it's simply a list of experienced nations. You may indeed use nations other than the hosts or those on the 'list', which may well prove to be a useful way of gaining scorination experience.

In other words, anyone can scorinate these additional friendlies, depending on the preferences of the participating nations.