The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Free Republics]

Given that we finally have a bid for the World Cup, we need a BoF bid as well to avoid excessive delays. I'm looking to do a bid for the BoF that will be much more conventional than that World Cup bid. If interested and you've hosted something before, please TG me or get ahold of me on Discord.

I have heard that there are other WC bids in the works but I'm unaware of anybody else looking to put together a BoF bid

So far, I have not heard from anybody and to the best of my knowledge there are still no other BoF bids in the works. My preference is to bid with a partner but I'm also ready to bid solo if necessary. Either way, I'll be looking to get a BoF bid up shortly after we get another WC bid.

Consider this a last call for potential bidding partners.

[Northwest Kalactin]

We’re still doing this crap

[Bears Armed]

Any of you who are following the latest iterations of both the Di Bradini Cup and the RL Women’s World Cup might have noticed that several players in the Bears’ DBC team have surnames the same as — or, in one case, only one letter different from — those of some players in England’s WWC team. From an IC viewpoint this is, of course, purely coincidental: OOC, I admit that when I was watching England’s first match and noticed that some of the players had surnames that would fit perfectly well as Ursine ones [for members of certain specific clans] I used this as one of my inspirations when choosing names for the Belles…

[Equestrian States]

Hum de dum...

[Free Republics]

BoF bid

[NSWC Signups]

With bids now submitted for both tournaments, the deadline for World Cup and Baptism of Fire host bids is hereby set for Saturday, June 29 at 11:59 PM EDT.

[Valanora]

The DBC is currently on hiatus as somehow xkoranate has uninstalled itself off my computer...

[Bears Armed]

The DBC is currently on hiatus as somehow xkoranate has uninstalled itself off my computer...

Thank you for letting us know.
Will you be giving the the delay an IC aspect, due to something happening in your nation that we could RP about, or do you see it as purely OOC?

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

BoF bid

Given different circumstances, I might've spoken up about a chance to co-host the BOF with you, but then I launched my impulsive WLC bid.
I still think I'm gonna have to go on a stadium expansion course before I bid for any WCC events.

[Valanora]

After a bit of technical work, i've gotten xkoranate back on my computer and running smoothly once more. MD3 for the DBC will now be Friday evening CDT.

[Bears Armed]

For the knockout rounds of the DBC, which stadiums are being used for which games?

[95X]

There is ZERO chance I can support a World Cup bid with playoffs, much less with a longer OOC qualifying schedule.

Now, I know what regulars are probably thinking: "Uh, 95X you should sit down and quiet down, you don't even get a vote in the matter."

I take responsibility for misinterpreting clearly-stated World Cup Committee membership criteria; however I can still lobby and advocate against said bid.

While obviously we disagree, I will say, at the very least, that 18 matchdays in 19 real days is something that should be avoided generally speaking. It is very wearing on RPers, and rest days can serve to help everyone stay fresh, which is also important.

I was thinking of answering these questions with a joke host bid but quickly realized that anywhere else on NS, it'd probably be considered posting in bad faith and I'd get reprimanded. So I'll just get the idea out there.

And that is: if 18 matchday qualifiers are too long, then lengthening the OOC schedule is just going to make it longer. In addition, having qualifying playoffs at the end of those 18 matchdays doesn't incentivize RPing, it incentivizes rankcoasting because someone can post 18 matchdays of quality roleplays and finish second, so instead of qualifying for the World Cup they can lose 1-0 to an opponent that finished third posting one-liners or just a roster.

Therefore, what I believe is necessary is a pre-qualifying round, to reduce the number of matchdays needed for qualifying.

Let's say there are 152 nations that are signed up for a World Cup. The two hosts obviously participate in the WC itself (and I'm assuming that they qualified for the previous World Cup) so that leaves 150 nations hoping to qualify. Now, let's say that the other 30 nations that qualified for the previous World Cup are also signed up. So that's 120 nations that are neither hosting nor qualified for the previous World Cup. So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers? That would leave 60 winners plus 30 nations that previously qualified, for a total of 90. Those 90 could be placed in 15 groups of 6 nations each, in a double round-robin format that would be 10 total qualifying games per team, and the top two from each group qualify for the World Cup.

There are also other ways to determine who automatically participates in the qualifiers, which may have different number breakdowns.

As it stands, since I am not submitting a host bid and bids are due tonight just before midnight on the East Coast of the United States, 95X recommends World Cup Committee voters vote to re-open bids.

[Darmen]

So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers?

So for 60 nations, their qualifying campaign would be over after a single match?

Ew.

Please tell me I've read this wrong.

[Recuecn]

So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers?

So for 60 nations, their qualifying campaign would be over after a single match?

Ew.

Please tell me I've read this wrong.

This is the page I'm on. I understand the frustration with playoff matches--it can be devastating to see your WC hopes crushed in just a playoff, when you've put so much effort into the qualifiers. But I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to not even have a chance to participate, and have your qualifying campaign end before it's properly begun. To the vast majority of nations, participating in the 'world cup' really just means the qualifiers--it's the most accessible part of the tournament where everybody gets to participate.

Realistically, I'm aware there's no way in hell I'm qualifying this cycle. Rping for the qualifiers is what I'm looking forward too, and I don't think it's fair to have a qualifying system that takes that possibility away from half the players trying to qualify.

[Equestrian States]

And that is: if 18 matchday qualifiers are too long, then lengthening the OOC schedule is just going to make it longer.

I'd like to point out that our bid is explicitly designed to avoid, or at least mitigate, this issue as much as possible. None of the proposed formats we listed in our bid (and I have copied below) would be any longer than 14 matchdays, allowing us to incorporate additional off-days without lengthening the OOC schedule by any significant amount, if at all. So if you're worried that we'll be looking at a 30+ day qualifying campaign, don't be, because we don't want that any more than you do. Our goal with the additional off-days is primarily to provide users with a break from the typically grueling qualifying schedule of approximately three weeks of constant competition with only one day off, not to bore them to death with never-ending downtime.

142 participants (140+2 hosts): 20 groups of 7 teams; 20 group winners qualify, 20 runners-up to playoffs (10 qualify)
146 participants (144+2 hosts): 24 groups of 6 teams; 24 group winners qualify, 24 runners-up to playoff groups (6 groups of 4 teams, 6 winners qualify)
154 participants (152+2 hosts): 19 groups of 8 teams; 19 group winners qualify, 19 runners-up and 3 wild cards to playoffs (11 qualify)
156 participants (154+2 hosts): 22 groups of 7 teams; 22 group winners qualify, 22 runners-up and 10 wild cards to playoff groups (8 groups of 4 teams, 8 winners qualify)
162 participants (160+2 hosts): 20 groups of 8 teams; 20 group winners qualify, 20 runners-up to playoffs (10 qualify)
170 participants (168+2 hosts): 24 groups of 7 teams; 24 group winners qualify, 24 runners-up to playoff groups (6 groups of 4 teams, 6 winners qualify)
178 participants (176+2 hosts): 22 groups of 8 teams; 22 group winners qualify, 22 runners-up and 10 wild cards to playoff groups (8 groups of 4 teams, 8 winners qualify)
194 participants (192+2 hosts): 24 groups of 8 teams; 24 group winners qualify, 24 runners-up to playoff groups (6 groups of 4 teams, 6 winners qualify)

Note: Should participant numbers not fit with any of the above proposed formats, we would consider alternative formats in order to allow as many people as are interested to participate, while also maintaining our objective of scheduling more off days during qualifying than in previous tournaments.

In addition, having qualifying playoffs at the end of those 18 matchdays doesn't incentivize RPing, it incentivizes rankcoasting because someone can post 18 matchdays of quality roleplays and finish second, so instead of qualifying for the World Cup they can lose 1-0 to an opponent that finished third posting one-liners or just a roster.

I disagree, of course. And remember that I have a notoriously awful record in WCQ playoffs, so none of this is coming from somebody with a rose-tinted view of the playoff system.

It's worth noting that only a few of our proposed formats feature wild card teams advancing, and even those which do feature wild card teams would include only as many as is necessary to make the numbers work. It strikes me as unlikely that a purely rank-coasting team would finish in that selective group ahead of active RPers and defeat another active RPer in a head-to-head playoff or finish atop a playoff group with active RPers. It's certainly possible (as is the rank-coaster qualifying outright by winning their group) but not mathematically probable.

As users are generally more likely to RP when they still have a chance to advance in the tournament, including playoffs in WC qualifying provides more incentive to RP because it keeps the potential field of qualifiers as large as possible for as long as possible. Additionally, it must be said that avoiding playoffs entirely (which I believe is the only way to completely eliminate your nightmare scenario of a rank-coaster knocking a regular RPer out of the tournament in a one-off matchup) generally difficult to achieve once signups pass the 152 participants mark (which they have for WC83 already) without further expanding the total number of MDs or radically altering the qualifying format.

Which brings me to your proposal...

Therefore, what I believe is necessary is a pre-qualifying round, to reduce the number of matchdays needed for qualifying.

Let's say there are 152 nations that are signed up for a World Cup. The two hosts obviously participate in the WC itself (and I'm assuming that they qualified for the previous World Cup) so that leaves 150 nations hoping to qualify. Now, let's say that the other 30 nations that qualified for the previous World Cup are also signed up. So that's 120 nations that are neither hosting nor qualified for the previous World Cup. So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers? That would leave 60 winners plus 30 nations that previously qualified, for a total of 90. Those 90 could be placed in 15 groups of 6 nations each, in a double round-robin format that would be 10 total qualifying games per team, and the top two from each group qualify for the World Cup.

So, basically playoffs before qualifying instead of after qualifying?

While I could see myself supporting, or even bidding with, a new qualifying format in the future, this is not a format I could ever support under any circumstances, as (unless I'm completely missing something here) eliminating a significant chunk of the qualifying pool after just a few days strikes me as the best way to ensure that the WC sees as little RPing as possible. Sure, some teams will continue RPing after the fact to qualify for the CoH, but for some newcomer (which most of the eliminated nations would be), being eliminated so early could effectively kill any interest they might have in the tournament or even NS Sports entirely.

As it stands, since I am not submitting a host bid and bids are due tonight just before midnight on the East Coast of the United States, 95X recommends World Cup Committee voters vote to re-open bids.

I'm obviously biased as a member of the only (non-insane) World Cup bid, but I would recommend not voting to re-open bids if you're concerned about dragging out this WC cycle any more than it already has been. Were we to re-open bidding, it would add about 2-3 weeks to the process of deciding the WC hosts, and AFAIK there is no guarantee that another serious bid would be submitted in that time frame, meaning we might end up right back where we are now.

If you want to vote to re-open bids (or even vote for Drawkland's bid even though he says you probably shouldn't), that is your right. However, if your main problem with me and Banija's bid is really that it might make the OOC schedule longer by at most a few days, then maybe you should reassess voting to extend the process of awarding host rights by a couple weeks.

[Free Republics]

The odds of a rank coaster (or even some unranked or BoF nation) knocking off an actively RPing nation would be much higher in a pre-qualifying playoff than a post-qualifying playoff so I don't see that as an improvement.

Since there's talk of voting reopen host bids for the World Cup, I should make clear, as the only BoF bidder, that I intend to move forward immediately with the BoF upon winning the vote, whether or not we have World Cup hosts.

[95X]

For World Cup 82, it appears 97 rosters were posted (99 posts; one to start the thread and one where a user asked if they needed to repost their Baptism of Fire roster) for 158 signups. That's only approximately 61%. Granted it's possible to post RPs without posting a roster, but we all know (some of us the hard way) that's frowned upon and doesn't count towards eventual WCC membership and voids WCC membership if it's an established nation/user.

And it's not like nations eliminated during the pre-qualifying that want to participate in a tournament couldn't create a 'Disqualified Cup'. Maybe even make that a one-off scorinated event like the AOCL.

What I do know is what we've been doing isn't working at the scale we're using it at, so let's discuss doing something about it other than continuing to do the same thing.

[Saltstead]

Even if the stated concerns were not the product of some misunderstanding of the bid, I would not be adequately convinced that they would make it necessary to delay the appointment of World Cup hosts. Nor do I agree that introducing a preliminary round like 95X describes would be beneficial or appropriate and if any future bid were to use such a format, I would actively campaign to reopen bids.

As the technical co-host of Drawk’s joke bid, I absolutely recommend World Cup Committee voters vote for the Equestria-Banija bid.

[Eastfield Lodge]

For World Cup 82, it appears 97 rosters were posted (99 posts; one to start the thread and one where a user asked if they needed to repost their Baptism of Fire roster) for 158 signups. That's only approximately 61%. Granted it's possible to post RPs without posting a roster, but we all know (some of us the hard way) that's frowned upon and doesn't count towards eventual WCC membership and voids WCC membership if it's an established nation/user.

And it's not like nations eliminated during the pre-qualifying that want to participate in a tournament couldn't create a 'Disqualified Cup'. Maybe even make that a one-off scorinated event like the AOCL.

What I do know is what we've been doing isn't working at the scale we're using it at, so let's discuss doing something about it other than continuing to do the same thing.

How many of those 97 rosters were posted before MD1 (y'know, the only time they'd count in your hypothetical pre-qualifying playoff scenario)?

Also, it's not just the issue of not participating, it's the issue of loss of KPB points. A top 10 nation could be upset in those playoffs, and bam, 0 points for that WC cycle.

[Flavovespia]

So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers?

So for 60 nations, their qualifying campaign would be over after a single match?

Ew.

Please tell me I've read this wrong.

As a returning nation with no ranking due to being gone for a number of cycles, I'd be very disappointed with such a format. Obviously I'm not impartial, but it could mean multiple cycles I can't get more than 1 or 2 RP's + roster in for example

[Free Republics]

For World Cup 82, it appears 97 rosters were posted (99 posts; one to start the thread and one where a user asked if they needed to repost their Baptism of Fire roster) for 158 signups. That's only approximately 61%. Granted it's possible to post RPs without posting a roster, but we all know (some of us the hard way) that's frowned upon and doesn't count towards eventual WCC membership and voids WCC membership if it's an established nation/user.

And it's not like nations eliminated during the pre-qualifying that want to participate in a tournament couldn't create a 'Disqualified Cup'. Maybe even make that a one-off scorinated event like the AOCL.

What I do know is what we've been doing isn't working at the scale we're using it at, so let's discuss doing something about it other than continuing to do the same thing.

How many of those 97 rosters were posted before MD1 (y'know, the only time they'd count in your hypothetical pre-qualifying playoff scenario)?

Also, it's not just the issue of not participating, it's the issue of loss of KPB points. A top 10 nation could be upset in those playoffs, and bam, 0 points for that WC cycle.

Given that a top 10 nation would have a bye (because its effectively impossible to be top 10 in the ranks without qualifying for the last WC), they wouldn't be able to be knocked out. The point still stands though for a top 20 nation since somebody in the top 20 routinely fails to qualify (especially if unmodified SQIS is used) and normally goes on to make a deep CoH run.

A "Disqualified Cup" doesn't exactly help with loss of KPBs.

---

In terms of alternatives to shorten qualifying without eliminating teams after 1 or 2 matches, there are:

1) Smaller groups. A 30 group format with 5 or 6 teams per group, winner take all and a double round-robin is just 10 matchdays. This was used in World Cup 66 and was pretty well-received back then. There's also the option of groups of 7 or 8 with playoffs.

2) The 2 group stage format used for WC54. Start with a 30 group (or, alternatively, more groups) format. Double round robin, advance the top 2 or so from each group to a second round. Second round is single round robin with 60-90 teams vying for a spot in the WC finals.

3) Scorinate 2 matches at a time. This is similar to what the WBC now does (3 matches at a time) and has worked extremely well there to enable longer group stages and thus reduce randomness.

4) Casaran format. Casaran can handle any odd number of teams and only needs somewhere around 10-12 matchdays (exact number is based on figuring how many days would be needed for a single elimination tournament with that number of teams then adding 2). The downside is the increased complexity for hosts and not knowing who your future opponents will be more than 1 day in advance.

[Kelssek]

What I do know is what we've been doing isn't working at the scale we're using it at, so let's discuss doing something about it other than continuing to do the same thing.

It is not obvious at all to me how the existing qualifying format is "not working" so can you please clarify what you think the problem is? As far as I can tell your objection is simply that it takes "too long" and you want more people to post a roster. Perhaps you're getting at the long time between World Cups, but this seems to have more to do with a lack of willing hosts.

Personally, anything which eliminates people early in qualifying, whether on day 2 or halfway through, is a bad idea in my book. Especially when that will primarily eliminate newer participants with lower rankings.

[Western Bjornaic]

I gotta redo my roster but besides that, I'm super hyped to participate

[USS Monitor]

What I do know is what we've been doing isn't working at the scale we're using it at, so let's discuss doing something about it other than continuing to do the same thing.

It is not obvious at all to me how the existing qualifying format is "not working" so can you please clarify what you think the problem is? As far as I can tell your objection is simply that it takes "too long" and you want more people to post a roster. Perhaps you're getting at the long time between World Cups, but this seems to have more to do with a lack of willing hosts.

Personally, anything which eliminates people early in qualifying, whether on day 2 or halfway through, is a bad idea in my book. Especially when that will primarily eliminate newer participants with lower rankings.

^This. I don't think there's an urgent need for change.

[Drawkland]

Therefore, what I believe is necessary is a pre-qualifying round, to reduce the number of matchdays needed for qualifying.

Let's say there are 152 nations that are signed up for a World Cup. The two hosts obviously participate in the WC itself (and I'm assuming that they qualified for the previous World Cup) so that leaves 150 nations hoping to qualify. Now, let's say that the other 30 nations that qualified for the previous World Cup are also signed up. So that's 120 nations that are neither hosting nor qualified for the previous World Cup. So why not put those 120 nations into a one or two game pre-qualifier that does not count for KPB points or rank, with 60 winners advancing to the qualifiers? That would leave 60 winners plus 30 nations that previously qualified, for a total of 90. Those 90 could be placed in 15 groups of 6 nations each, in a double round-robin format that would be 10 total qualifying games per team, and the top two from each group qualify for the World Cup.

Not even I was crazy enough to put something like that in a bid.

If you want to vote to re-open bids (or even vote for Drawkland's bid even though he says you probably shouldn't), that is your right.

As the technical co-host of Drawk’s joke bid, I absolutely recommend World Cup Committee voters vote for the Equestria-Banija bid.

Yes, don't vote for my bid. Unless you like any of the following things:

• pissing people off
• mass chaos
• probably not qualifying
• "a breath of fresh air," like if you weren't getting enough clean air indoors so instead of going outside you started breathing directly from a tank of helium.

If all of the above sound good to you then you have my permission to vote for my bid.