The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Savojarna]

I don't know if that's the right thread to ask (and whether I need to ask or if I am just blind and it'd be in the OP) but what is the cutoff time for DBC?

Also, my apologies for not roleplaying the Copa. It's not that I am going inactive again, but as I mentioned a few times, I currently live and study in the Netherlands, so over Christmas I went home (where I could RP) but over the last few days I was travelling back up to Maastricht and had my family over, plus discovered someone stole a PS3 out of my locked room (and either never unlocked the door or found a way to relock it) which took some attention as well. I hope you understand that showing my family my temporary home town was more important to me than the Copa! I will try to be back at my RP game for CR27, but given my inability to qualify now, I'll focus on DBC and BoF (and WCoH) and only write a Copa RP if I do find time in between, which is unlikely to be honest. Just wanted to make sure you know I don't go back to the "Sign up and not do anything" I unfortunately did in the last few months of Ficiscia's existence.

[Osarius]

So... are we going to be following the changes to the format of the RL World Cup any time soon or waiting nine years to implement a change, or just ignoring it entirely because we don't like it?

[Nephara]

I'm in the 'it's an issue to revisit in 2026' camp purely because I think it's an insanely stupid decision to expand the Cup to 48 (IRL) and want to kick it as far into the long grass as possible while still paying lip service to it.

In all seriousness, it's a valid issue... maybe even a WCC vote of our own?

[Savojarna]

I'm in the 'it's an issue to revisit in 2026' camp purely because I think it's an insanely stupid decision to expand the Cup to 48 (IRL) and want to kick it as far into the long grass as possible while still paying lip service to it.

In all seriousness, it's a valid issue... maybe even a WCC vote of our own?

This seems like a good idea to me, for the same reason... even though my resistance (in NS especially) is less the 48 teams but the groups of 3, which will lead to a lot of useless games in MD3.

[Kinzenland]

I personally don't think its right that I am in a group with a co-host's puppet in the Baptism of Fire. This is supposed to be for new nations and I get that the other co-host will scorinate this group, but I still feel this is not right and goes against the intention of this competition. I feel like I am already against the eight-ball with this group draw. Very demoralized and re-considering whether or not I will participate here, via RP.

[Spaam]

I personally don't think its right that I am in a group with a co-host's puppet in the Baptism of Fire. This is supposed to be for new nations and I get that the other co-host will scorinate this group, but I still feel this is not right and goes against the intention of this competition. I feel like I am already against the eight-ball with this group draw. Very demoralized and re-considering whether or not I will participate here, via RP.

Four points:
1. There isn't, and never has been, a rule against a BoF host having a puppet in the same competition.
2. Someone has to be in their group, you and three others were drawn to be in it.
3. The puppet will be scored by the other host, so you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
4. If you are reconsidering RPing because you feel that you have a lower chance of winning, then you really shouldn't be RPing here in the first place.

To put your mind at ease, this argument has been had so many times over the past (RL) decade, and we have never had a problem with it. In fact, the general rule of RPing is, the better the RPing of the other nations in your group, the easier it is for you to RP well. Most experienced RPers would prefer other experienced RPers (like the host) in their group. So just enjoy the free ranking points and have fun!

[Kinzenland]

There is a psychological disadvantage that I am at, regardless of whether or not the other co-host is scorinating. Each nation is up against three other new nations for two spots. I am up against two new nations, and one co-host puppet for two spots. I would never have an issue if I was in a group of an established player's puppet, but in this case the co-host's puppet has a psychological advantage. For example, his RP might be scored 1.5 points. If I RP'd the exact same thing, I might get 1.2 points, just because in the back of the mind of the scorinator, that's the co-hosts puppet.

I feel there is nothing wrong with wanting a level playing field, which I don't think I have. Maybe you are right about point 4, but if anyone read my RP's in the World Baseball Classic you will see that I am very much in favor of a have fun aspect. There, the playing field was level and it was accepted that the ranks made you different. Here, in my only chance at a Baptism of Fire, I don't have that level playing field, in my opinion.

How do you know that no one had a problem with it in the past? Did every new user in those groups before continue to participate in all cases? Did any not participate? How do you know that ones that did not participate chose not to participate for the exact same reason I am contesting? So, you can't say that no one has had a problem with it unless you know the answer to the definitively. A new user is more likely to be quiet and leave in this situation, not voice their contention.

[Free Republics]

There is a psychological disadvantage that I am at, regardless of whether or not the other co-host is scorinating. Each nation is up against three other new nations for two spots. I am up against two new nations, and one co-host puppet for two spots. I would never have an issue if I was in a group of an established player's puppet, but in this case the co-host's puppet has a psychological advantage. For example, his RP might be scored 1.5 points. If I RP'd the exact same thing, I might get 1.2 points, just because in the back of the mind of the scorinator, that's the co-hosts puppet.

I feel there is nothing wrong with wanting a level playing field, which I don't think I have. Maybe you are right about point 4, but if anyone read my RP's in the World Baseball Classic you will see that I am very much in favor of a have fun aspect. There, the playing field was level and it was accepted that the ranks made you different. Here, in my only chance at a Baptism of Fire, I don't have that level playing field, in my opinion.

How do you know that no one had a problem with it in the past? Did every new user in those groups before continue to participate in all cases? Did any not participate? How do you know that ones that did not participate chose not to participate for the exact same reason I am contesting? So, you can't say that no one has had a problem with it unless you know the answer to the definitively. A new user is more likely to be quiet and leave in this situation, not voice their contention.

Its also possible that a co-host's puppet could receive lower scores, as the other host may want to avoid the appearance of bias and end up overcompensating (this is probably more likely, in my experience). Host puppets, historically speaking, have not been very competitive in the BoF and usually don't even end up being RPed. Personally, I wouldn't bid for a BoF when I was planning to enter a puppet in it because I wouldn't want to waste a nation's BoF eligibility but I do trust in Bonesea's ability to treat Mercedini's puppet no differently from any other nation (and the EWCC, which is just us former WC hosts, wouldn't have voted for the bid if we had doubts about that).

[Northern Sunrise Islands]

So... are we going to be following the changes to the format of the RL World Cup any time soon or waiting nine years to implement a change, or just ignoring it entirely because we don't like it?

Think the latter.
The RL change is mostly based after "money, dear boy" anyway, we don't really have any sort of real reason to expand numbers on the World Cup. Plus, the CoH would lose a bit of relevance if we did so.

[Osarius]

we don't really have any sort of real reason to expand numbers on the World Cup. Plus, the CoH would lose a bit of relevance if we did so.

Could argue we have even less reason not to, though. Expanding the World Cup has been brought up (multiple times) here in the past, after all.

IIRC the prevailing response has typically been something along the lines of "NSWC is an analog of the RL WC, so let's consider it when the RL WC does" ...and well... here we are, lol.

Figured it would be a worthwhile discussion now that it's topical (and the previously given reasoning against the idea no longer applies).

[Northern Sunrise Islands]

we don't really have any sort of real reason to expand numbers on the World Cup. Plus, the CoH would lose a bit of relevance if we did so.

Could argue we have even less reason not to, though. Expanding the World Cup has been brought up (multiple times) here in the past, after all.

IIRC the prevailing response has typically been something along the lines of "NSWC is an analog of the RL WC, so let's consider it when the RL WC does" ...and well... here we are, lol.

Figured it would be a worthwhile discussion now that it's topical (and the previously given reasoning against the idea no longer applies).

Well, it's fair. It's just... damn FIFA. And again, we have to think of the CoH bit too, that'd get the shaft hard.

[Free Republics]

we don't really have any sort of real reason to expand numbers on the World Cup. Plus, the CoH would lose a bit of relevance if we did so.

Could argue we have even less reason not to, though. Expanding the World Cup has been brought up (multiple times) here in the past, after all.

IIRC the prevailing response has typically been something along the lines of "NSWC is an analog of the RL WC, so let's consider it when the RL WC does" ...and well... here we are, lol.

Figured it would be a worthwhile discussion now that it's topical (and the previously given reasoning against the idea no longer applies).

We'll probably end up expanding to 48 in 9 years or so when a new generation decides that's a good idea and I'd have no problem with 8 groups of 6 but 16 groups of 3 is a terrible format that I don't want to ever see in the NSWC.

[Eastfield Lodge]

My two cents: Given the decline in participation numbers since the heydays of WC50s/60s, I think it would be best if we stick with 32. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the WC expand to 40 teams (8 groups of 5), especially if numbers pick up again. 48, atm, is just too much, and as stated elsewhere, largely shafts the CoH.

Probably never going to become an amendment, but how about a cutoff for the 32 team requirement - if the percentage of teams that would qualify for the finals in a WC falls below x%, the hosts are allowed to expand the WC finals?

[San Jose Guayabal]

What I have to bring up is about the matter of having some sort of parallelism with RL World Cup and ours in terms of format, since in the inception of the NSWC, roughly around 2002, the format was 32 and it was inspired in the model that it's used in RL. There might be poeple wanting to stick to the new format but honestly, 16 groups of 3 is preposterous, maybe using eight groups of six will work better, we would have more games but that won't cause harm to IC calendars, since we can make those flexible according to the World Cup schedule. What I suggest is to held a vote when we notice a progressive increase in the number of people interested to take part of the World Cup, like, when we have 182 or more teams, that'd be a wise timing.

[Drawkland]

I think that it should be legalized while not necessarily required. Giving hosts more options and creating more disparity between opposing bids can be an interesting option, and puts more at stake between normally nearly-identical bids.

[Savojarna]

Given the concern over CoH, one could also consider (sacrilege, I know, coming from a relative newbie like me!) to abandon than in favour of a larger World Cup? I never fully understood the rationale of CoH past "more people can participate in a final", as it seemed to me that RPing something fairly standard and not living up to the elaborate storylines of others was enough to get me in with Ficiscia. And then, CoH feeling kind of useless compared with WC proper to me, I never felt much motivation to RP past a roster, which I tended to post more to allow others better RP. I don't mean to offend any CoH hosts, winners etc., but to me, it always felt more appealing to save potential ideas for stories beyond game reports for the next WC (or now, that I am in a sporting region, Copa). And to be honest, the thrill of writing game commentaries vanishes fairly quickly as it starts to repeat itself after a cycle.

If the idea is to give people who narrowly miss out but show effort a chance to accumulate KPB points, I wonder if bonus points for coming 1st/2nd/3rd/4th in a WCQ group might be a better idea, plus the fact that a 48 team WC would allow more players to play in the big thing.

If the idea is hosting experience, maybe a 48 team WC would be hosted by more than two people anyway?

That said, I still prefer the 32 team + COH solution that we have right now, as it is tried and tested. This is more meant as a question whether we need the CoH in itself or whether its need arises from the 32 team cap. Because if that is the main objection to 48 teams, I think it is a question worth raising.

[Free Republics]

What I have to bring up is about the matter of having some sort of parallelism with RL World Cup and ours in terms of format, since in the inception of the NSWC, roughly around 2002, the format was 32 and it was inspired in the model that it's used in RL. There might be poeple wanting to stick to the new format but honestly, 16 groups of 3 is preposterous, maybe using eight groups of six will work better, we would have more games but that won't cause harm to IC calendars, since we can make those flexible according to the World Cup schedule. What I suggest is to held a vote when we notice a progressive increase in the number of people interested to take part of the World Cup, like, when we have 182 or more teams, that'd be a wise timing.

The only issue with waiting is that it takes a cycle or 2 to notice the change and get an amendment passed before that could take effect. If the majority feel we should do that if/when we return to large qualifying fields, then we should probably make the structural changes now to provide the option when its needed instead of 1-2 cycles after its needed.

Probably never going to become an amendment, but how about a cutoff for the 32 team requirement - if the percentage of teams that would qualify for the finals in a WC falls below x%, the hosts are allowed to expand the WC finals?

Maybe something along the lines of 'The WC Finals field cannot exceed 30% of the entrants unless the number of entrants is less than 107' would work? That protects the 32-team format if we end up with a 92 or 102 team field in the future while providing an upper bound on expansion. That would prohibit the 48 team format if less than 160 nations sign up (which would conveniently allow a 23x7 qualifying format).

Alternatively, we could do falls below 20% allows expansion. That would be equivalent to allowing expansion if 161 or more nations sign up.

I think that it should be legalized while not necessarily required. Giving hosts more options and creating more disparity between opposing bids can be an interesting option, and puts more at stake between normally nearly-identical bids.

I'd also strongly prefer, if we go this route, that it be an option, not a requirement.

---

Regarding the argument Savojarna brought up, I'd be opposed to abolishing the CoH which would mean having to tell new nations that "you probably won't qualify for 2 or 3 cycles even if you do RP and there's no reward for RPing other than possibly finishing in the middle of the pack rather than last". Expanding the field and abolishing the CoH probably won't help get any but the best/luckiest new nations into the finals. The ones that are either unlucky or lack exceptional RP skills would still have no chance. The CoH likely helps to keep average RPers around and give them time to get better and/or a rank before they break into the finals. The other thing to note is that the ceiling without ever RPing (and with a CoH) is historically about 50th or so in the ranks so those nations might get into an expanded finals over the active newbies and the unlucky RPers.

[Savojarna]

Regarding the argument Savojarna brought up, I'd be opposed to abolishing the CoH which would mean having to tell new nations that "you probably won't qualify for 2 or 3 cycles even if you do RP and there's no reward for RPing other than possibly finishing in the middle of the pack rather than last". Expanding the field and abolishing the CoH probably won't help get any but the best/luckiest new nations into the finals. The ones that are either unlucky or lack exceptional RP skills would still have no chance. The CoH likely helps to keep average RPers around and give them time to get better and/or a rank before they break into the finals. The other thing to note is that the ceiling without ever RPing (and with a CoH) is historically about 50th or so in the ranks so those nations might get into an expanded finals over the active newbies and the unlucky RPers.

That is a fair enough reasoning, and while I will keep raising some concerns over CoH this is not necessarily to be seen as an expression of me wanting to abolish it, more wanting to avoid that we stick with something that may not be great just because it did make sense earlier.

The issue I have with the current CoH is that if I remember correctly, the one I was in had a 40-team-field (it was the WC74 cycle, if anybody wants to check, and I may be mistaken about the number, this is really just my memory) in addition to the 32-team WC. Now I know that one can reach the WC finals (and in my case quarterfinals, and I still feel a bit sorry about that) without even providing a roster and not being in the Top 32 of the world either, but this is unusual luck and I presume that at least 20-25 WC participants did RP on a level sufficient for CoH or better. This means that between 60 and 70 people, which is almost half of participants, play some kind of finals. Again, I don't consider my RP of the 74th cycle to be anything special - it was mostly 3-4 paragraphs of game commentary, and reading it nowadays makes me roll eyes quite regularly. In my opinion, all that made it somewhat special was the fact that I barely missed any games in WCQ.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how many past CoH participants would have made a 48 team WC. If it was more than half, I do honestly not see the need for a CoH (and again, the "reward of coming in mid-of-pack rather than last" could be made bigger if the KPB rankings awarded bonus points for higher finishes, which would also be a motivation to keep fighting even in a lost spot). If there were still, say, 24 CoH participants that would not have made the cut in an average year, my criticism is entirely revoked. But given my CoH experience, it barely feels like an achievement to reach it, and in consequence provides relatively little incentive to bring my best RP game aside from KPB points, compared with the thrill of a WC.

I'm not advocating for the abolition of CoH in general, but if it is the only thing preventing us from an expansion that would be supported by a majority otherwise, I don't think that is a good thing.

[Valanora]

So... are we going to be following the changes to the format of the RL World Cup any time soon or waiting nine years to implement a change, or just ignoring it entirely because we don't like it?

I can't remember exactly which thread but The Archred brought up this question in the past when it was first being talked about. It was decided then by the WCC and the WCC President that we would wait until the change takes place IRL before switching over ours as well. So in that case, if we were to follow with that decision, we would be waiting until it comes to pass in 9 years before changing ours as well. Even then, I think a move to 40 is far better than 48, but that is just my two cents.

[San Jose Guayabal]

Eliminating CoH would be eliminating a little help for those who doesn't qualify to WC since many nations get a good rank base by competing there a couple of cycles while building a competitive rank in order to have a real possibility to get into the World Cup finals, it'll be unfair to eliminate it. There are lots of people who had competed in CoH in regular basis and have built enough rank in order to get into fight, apart of being a reward for the constant effort of RPing and make sure that effort doesn't goes in vain; examples that I can mention are Gregoryisgodistan, Fluvique, Red Blackiland, Ethane and several others including myself.

I agree with Free Republics reasoning of saving the 32 team format under a certain percentage of teams qualifying, keeping in 30% is a fair share. Same with Eastfield Lodge's reasoning of submitting this to vote before being too late to apply.

[Ethane]

Eliminating CoH would be eliminating a little help for those who doesn't qualify to WC since many nations get a good rank base by competing there a couple of cycles while building a competitive rank in order to have a real possibility to get into the World Cup finals... examples that I can mention are ...Ethane

Not that I am opposed to the CoH (we should keep it), I actually never properly RP'd in the first 2 CoH's I participated in because I immediately went on holiday/had exams after both of them.

The CoH provides a function insofar as providing a new nation, which practically has no chance of getting into the WC (me in WC74), a way in which they can participate in more football and boost their KPB rank for the next cycle, increasing their chances of making it to the WC proper each cycle. It provides more inspiration to RP. Besides, I often RP because I want to RP on here, and while the results are a bonus, I am RP'ing for my own enjoyment.

[Darmen]

We shouldn't follow RL just for the sake of following RL. The size of the NSWC should be dictated by the circumstances surrounding the NSWC. In my opinion (I know I haven't been around much in the past year and a half, but it doesn't seem like much has changed around here, let me know if I'm wrong), the circumstances surrounding the NSWC are not such that the amount of teams in the NSWC needs to change. We should keep it at 32, and the CoH should remain as well. IF and when the amount of signups for the NSWC rise (or fall *shudders*) substantially, then we should discuss changes.

In any case...

#InfantinoOut

[Bonesea]

I personally don't think its right that I am in a group with a co-host's puppet in the Baptism of Fire. This is supposed to be for new nations and I get that the other co-host will scorinate this group, but I still feel this is not right and goes against the intention of this competition. I feel like I am already against the eight-ball with this group draw. Very demoralized and re-considering whether or not I will participate here, via RP.

It will be a shame if you don't participate, since you are not 'against the eight-ball'.

There is a psychological disadvantage that I am at, regardless of whether or not the other co-host is scorinating. Each nation is up against three other new nations for two spots. I am up against two new nations, and one co-host puppet for two spots. I would never have an issue if I was in a group of an established player's puppet, but in this case the co-host's puppet has a psychological advantage. For example, his RP might be scored 1.5 points. If I RP'd the exact same thing, I might get 1.2 points, just because in the back of the mind of the scorinator, that's the co-hosts puppet.

The co-host does not have a psychological advantage; your example is entirely speculative and completely incorrect.

I feel there is nothing wrong with wanting a level playing field, which I don't think I have. Maybe you are right about point 4, but if anyone read my RP's in the World Baseball Classic you will see that I am very much in favor of a have fun aspect. There, the playing field was level and it was accepted that the ranks made you different. Here, in my only chance at a Baptism of Fire, I don't have that level playing field, in my opinion.

You do have a level playing field.

Just to be clear, I will not be favouring the co-host puppet against any other nation. I can assure you that even calling a host's integrity into question isn't going to have an impact on your outcomes. You should take part, have fun, and RP without prejudice.

[Kinzenland]

Just to be clear, I will not be favouring the co-host puppet against any other nation. I can assure you that even calling a host's integrity into question isn't going to have an impact on your outcomes. You should take part, have fun, and RP without prejudice.

You almost had me convinced up until this sentence.
No integrity was called into question. An implied conflict of interest was called into question. If I can interrupt with a brief political example, and I apologize for doing so, it is like why Donald Trump can no longer run the Trump Tower. No one questioned his integrity in that aspect, it is the potential conflict of interest that was.

I'm not going to argue anymore, the attempt to make it personal was enough. Goodbye, NS Sports.

[Bonesea]

OMG*! Well I've never been compared to Donald Trump before. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

---

*Old Man Gasps