The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Valanora]

I am very much against this proposal. The formula works because of its equality and consistency, this would disrupt that balance with unequal application of KPBs

[Savigliane]

Not sure if getting 37 points and finishing second should be inherently rewarded over getting 37 points and finishing third (not against it, just something I'm not sure about).

An alternative approach could be to just add points received in the playoffs to the Qualifiers points total while leaving the number of matches played the same (only for non-qualifiers). Not sure how that scales to WC83-like formats, though.

[Legalese]

I am very much against this proposal. The formula works because of its equality and consistency, this would disrupt that balance with unequal application of KPBs

I don't know about unequal here; it really comes down to how you feel about if teams should earn points for playoff matches/post-initial round stages. Up to this point, the answer has already been yes, but it might not be obvious: if you finish in a playoff place, you don't get the PPG from the playoffs, but you get the minimum bonus that's given to everyone who makes the field of 32 (i.e., the points to make a three-loss run in the World Cup worth the trip, over possibly better odds to clean house in the CoH and come out better on KPB in the end) if you win your playoff and make the cup. I still think my playoff format in WC 68 would have gone over poorly because of the group winners not being locked into the finals, but if big fields are back again and there's a movement towards smaller groups (a bunch of hexagonals with an additional round to sort out the qualifiers if that's too big could potentially be fantastic), then maybe there is some value to broader playoffs that provide some reward to the teams that take some points from the playoff, but have to settle for popcorn and the TV when it comes to the World Cup finals. At minimum, i find the idea interesting.

[Omerica]

• Not every World Cup cycle would have the same amount of KPB points on offer.

I feel compelled to note that this is already the case by virtue of the three-points-for-a-win system: draws award a combined two points, instead of the three points awarded for a win. Consequently, a higher rate of draws means fewer total KPB points for the cycle.

As for the change itself (which would give me a tiny bump this cycle), I’m not really sold.

[Farfadillis]

Not sure if getting 37 points and finishing second should be inherently rewarded over getting 37 points and finishing third (not against it, just something I'm not sure about).

The logic here would be, in my mind, that if there were two teams ahead of you (ie, that also managed to get 37+ points), then getting points in your group was in a sense inherently "easier" (that's why two teams gathered more points than you). I mean, that's basically the logic we apply when we decide, for example, that the top team of each group qualifies and the second goes to a play-off; we never really look at the overall table combining every group and pick the top X from there. We do look at the groups as if they were equal when we calculate KPB ranks, but that's arguably only because otherwise it would be a huge pain to calculate them.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

So far, I think all of the points brought up are excellent. As soon as I thought I had an angle I agreed with, someone framed it a different way.

I made the WC for the first time as a result of a playoff where each team won a leg. I got three pts for making the last 32, Qas got nothing. I think if we treated the playoff as what it is technically--a 180 minute match--then the winner on total goals gets the 3 bonus points, but the losing team gets a point added to their qualifying total for making it to that point.

For all of the mixed feeling about playoffs, the reality is we are going to have them as long as fields stay in this range going forward. A no playoff bid would have to be 15 groups of X, top 2 qualify, or 30 groups of X, winner qualifies.
TJUN-in, San Ortelio, NLA, S Covello--as four examples, but not the only ones--should deserve something other than a virtual pat on the back and 'thanks for playing our game'.

[PotatoFarmers]

I thought it through after reading every point here. Yes, the motivation of the proposal is good. The question, however, would be how it is implemented. Audio's solution is pretty well thought out, and it does address some first concerns I probably would have about awarding KPBs to playoffs. The question about whether second placed teams will gain more than the first placed teams has been addressed by stating that only playoff losers gain the partial bonus. The question now, imo - how much should we reward teams who lose in the playoffs? I am a bit sitting on the fence on this one, though I must say, I am still concerned on the issue of the consistency between different playoff systems, like the one in WC83.

[Starblaydia]

Currently, the KPB formula doesn't account for matches played in a second phase of qualifying. The teams entering World Cup 83's six-group second phase or World Cup 87's two-legged playoffs didn't earn any KPB points for any draws or wins they may have picked up.

I have a proposal that addresses this.

It makes sense to me that a second qualification stage would pick up KPB points, given the round robin nature of it, and how infrequently it happens.

My main question on the play-offs awarding KPBs, though, is why? It's a tie-breaking, 30-team enabling extra match (or two), where the reward is the World Cup and the points that go with it. The losing teams already will not be picking up any extra KPBs from it, so why potentially nerf the qualifying KPB boost for those the teams that make it through two legs without winning both matches?

[Audioslavia]

...why potentially nerf the qualifying KPB boost for those the teams that make it through two legs without winning both matches?

Unless I'm mistaken, this is exactly the same misinterpretation that a few others have had, so I have to assume I've failed at writing clearly.

The teams winning their playoff get their full three point allocation for qualifying for the World Cup, as normal. They don't get more than three or less than three, they get three. Like they do now. The bonus for qualifying for the World Cup is exactly three points.

The teams losing their playoff get points won divided by games played, so a team winning one and losing one would get 1.5. A team drawing one and losing one would get 0.5 etc.

There is no disadvantage to teams that have qualified, but for the fact that the gap between them and the handful of teams that were knocked out in the playoffs is cut slightly by an average of a little less than one*

* I haven't run the maths, this is my intuition. I can run the maths at some point in the future to figure out exactly what the averages are for playoffs and secondary group stages.

[Valanora]

In addition to my earlier statement, I have to add that I am against the idea of awarding KPBs for what is essentially a competition wide tiebreaker when it comes to playoffs. It is something that does not make logical.sense. I get the emotional thought behind it but emotions should not play a factor in something that needs be grounded in logic and balance like the KPB formula is.

Also, yes the idea of a second group stage getting KPBs makes sense, but then we come back to the arguments we had when first implemented. It further stratified the ranks with teams now able to accrue more points than others and decentivizes the competition if a % are already eliminated while a second qualifying goes on. It also then really fiddles the ranking formula as it is based on all teams have an equal amount of games played and points available to play for. Which is why for me it should be a system avoided at all costs.

When it comes to the size of the field, I offer this as observation of being the rank keeper and veteran host. We are over a year into a global event that is giving people more free time or time at a home for the large part, so we've seen a bump in numbers the last two editions after having had a streak of smaller tournaments. This is not something that will be sustainable once things return to normal. Additionally there is on average around 40 participants per edition who sign up and are not seen again and another 20 to 30 who don't contribute. A usual cycle has around 90 involved nations. Massive reform for minor blips I feel is unneeded.

[Zwangzug]

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the proposal, but this:

It is something that does not make logical.sense. I get the emotional thought behind it but emotions should not play a factor in something that needs be grounded in logic and balance like the KPB formula is.

is pretty darn rich coming from someone who reweighted the host qualifier-equivalents by fiat.

[Audioslavia]

Zwang, that was neither constructive nor of any use to anyone.

When it comes to the size of the field, I offer this as observation of being the rank keeper and veteran host. We are over a year into a global event that is giving people more free time or time at a home for the large part, so we've seen a bump in numbers the last two editions after having had a streak of smaller tournaments. This is not something that will be sustainable once things return to normal. Additionally there is on average around 40 participants per edition who sign up and are not seen again and another 20 to 30 who don't contribute. A usual cycle has around 90 involved nations. Massive reform for minor blips I feel is unneeded.

The current numbers we're getting are around the level we were getting in the sixties. Numbers will certainly drop off from near-200 to nearer 140 again, but they will come back up. The KPB rankings were created when we were getting well under 100 entrants. Exploring ways we can alter the KPB formula to allow for two-stage qualifiers, which could bring matchdays down from 18-26 to 10-16, is something we should be doing. If there's a way which can allow for that without taking away what's good about the KPBs, we should talk about it.

[Strike]

I think there is a difference between two-stage qualifiers and playoffs.

I think two-stage qualifiers would require a unique solution The inherent issue with including results from a post-qualifying stage of any kind (beit 2 stage, or playoffs) is that the balance of quality of the opposition has changed.

The fundamental thing that keeps the KPB in line is that - at its core, it is loosely based on teams having some sort of commonality in the points they are earning. Teams are divided by ranking into pots and snaked around creating roughly equal groups. This happens at the start of both qualifying and the finals - IE: both times ranks are reset and points are tallied in a new column.

Yes, there is always a group of death, or a group with less RP than others - but at its ranking core each group is considered 'roughly equal'

Playoffs, Tiebreaker pods etc. Tend not to consider rank whatsoever. They are usually 1st v. 2nd, 2nd v. 3rd or some rankings strictly based on points and nothing to do with KPB. So you could have a 120th rank vs. a 90th rank in one match and a 5th v. 8th in another. Thats one point to them being 'ignored' for KPB as a 'tiebreaker'.

Effectively, they are 'unfair' / 'unbalanced' matchups at the core that would complicate the duties of the Rankings Recorder to manually enter them all as such and unlike Qualifiers - there is no "normal" that could truly be codified on a season by season basis. Sometimes there are multi legged, multi stage, grouped or no playoffs at all.

Effectively, we already have the Cup of Harmony as a place for teams who 'just missed out' on the World Cup but were perhaps otherwise deserving to earn back some of the KPB they missed out on by not making it to the finals.

I don't care either way honestly whether there is a "bonus point" for making the playoffs. I think thats easy enough. But-to the above, I would almost argue it should be a flat bonus and not have anything to do with the result of the matches. Make the world cup? 3 points. Make the playoff but miss the world cup? +1 point. Its not the fault of the 100th ranked team that they got drawn against the 5th ranked team and got thrashed while a 50th ranked side earned two draws against the 44th ranked side and lost on pk's. Doing it this way also allows it to fit any playoff system regardless of whether it is 1 game, 2 games, 3 games or some other number of games.

Or you could codify the system like this

Playoff Bonuses:
1st Loser (+1 Point)
2nd Loser (+0.5 Point)
Addl Losers (+0.25 Point)

The scenarios being applied would be as such:

Standard two-team playoff: Loser is 1st Loser

Standard two-stage Knockout Playoff (IE: A v. B; Winner advances to play C, Winner advances to World Cup): Loser of A v B is "2nd Loser" gets +0.5; Loser of AB v. C is "1st Loser" gets +1)

Four Team Playoff Pod: Winner Advances, 2nd Place gets +1, 3rd place +.5, 4th Place +.25

So again, the nice thing about sitting it flat is that it can be more accommodating to a variety of playoff formats without being as discriminatory about ranking or style of the playoff being run.





I dont think the same can be applied for extended two-stage systems and quite honestly I hope we don't have those because it means (half) the participants in the World Cup will be missing (half) the competition before it even starts.

[Farfadillis]

Although I already find Audio's proposal acceptable, I think I'd prefer Vil's alternative. I feel it makes more logical sense, specifically in that it keeps the basic assumptions of the KPB formula more or less intact.

As an aside (and yes, this will be whacky Farf with whacky ideas talking; feel free to ignore me, I just wanna throw this out there), I believe two-stage qualifiers are a potentially good idea in a vacuum (with the current ranking system, they are a very bad one), and there could be value in brainstorming what a fair ranking system for that would look like. I feel like it would be good at reducing burn-out and encouraging new RPers if we grabbed, say, the bottom 120 sign-ups (which just about cracked the top 100 KPB this WC) and got rid of half of them via groups of six, effectively weeding out lots of the no-shows and, if the scorinator formula is correctly calibrated, pretty much none of the actual RPers. This would've, obviously, also cut down the field to 130 teams this WC, which is very manageable.

[Audioslavia]

Aye, it'd be good to have some kind of system in place if a host decides they'd like some kind of tiered qualifiers, regardless of what we think about such an idea right now.

[Sarzonia]

The reason I think we should do something is that there is a difference between a team that has an additional chance to qualify after the regular qualification round ends and one that doesn't have the opportunity.

If you are eliminated on points or by tiebreakers, you get the KPB points you earned in qualifiying. If you play a single-leg or two-leg playoff, you still have more of a chance to earn a trip to the proper than the other teams. That should be reflected in the rankings in some way.

And, I know I've been guilty of this in the past, but let's try doing a better job of governing our emotions and try refraining from lashing out personally.

[Kelssek]

I have to say I really don't understand the motivation of Audioslavia's proposal or what problem exists that it fixes. Why are the points you get for performing well enough to finish 2nd or 3rd in qualifying insufficient? It seems to me the argument is basically "well, it's not enough". To which you can simply answer "well, they are".

I also see a) adding a complication to a fairly simple and straightforward formula, and b) the effect it would have on pressure for hosts to hold some form of second-stage qualification just because of the chance of extra points, as both very problematic.

[Recuecn]

My knee-jerk reaction was a strong negative one, but when I tried to figure out why, it boiled down to a few concerns. I like the KPB's simplicity for one thing, but I think the major thing is that as I've said before, I'm opposed to qualification formats that eliminate teams early. For most people, qualification is the tournament, and it's not fair to rob them of the chance to participate in all of it. Vil already said this pretty well. And also, like Vil said, there is admittedly a difference between playoffs and two-stage qualifying, but since it seems Audio is partially proposing this as a way to enable new qualifying formats, my opposition to multi-stage qualifying is still relevant.

My other comment is that the 3-point bonus for qualifying was originally explicitly intended, in my understanding, so that making it to the World Cup would always be better for one's ranking than going to the CoH. (A poorly ranked team that might win some points - or even have a perfect run - in the CoH would obviously prefer that to getting stomped on in a WC group stage.) Although as Audio has pointed out, his proposal doesn't take that away, what it does do is create the possibility that for a low- or mid-ranked team it's actually better to get some points in a playoff, lose it, and then do well in the Cup of Harmony, rather than try to qualify (which would mean 3 points but probably no more).

I would want to avoid any situation where a team in the CoH could earn more KPB points than a team in the WC, because after all, rank points are rewarded for doing well, and we can all agree that in theory, even making it to the WC at all is supposed to be better than a great CoH.

To make sure that this stays that way, every team that qualifies would deserve to earn points for making it to the playoffs (or skipping them entirely), as Vil has already suggested. But when you do this, it means that the proposal is now worsening the very issue it's trying to address - now, rather than giving some non-qualifying teams extra KPB points to help them toward the top and eventual qualification, it's just giving extra points to the same teams that are already at the top, distancing them even further from the newcomers. Obviously this is theoretical because this isn't what Audio is proposing, but then if you don't do this you're back to the original problem where coupled with some playoff points, a good CoH run can be better than an early WC elimination.

Audio said he's thinking about this because "The teams entering World Cup 83's six-group second phase or World Cup 87's two-legged playoffs didn't earn any KPB points for any draws or wins they may have picked up." In the end that doesn't really seem like a problem that needs fixing to me, but I'm hesitant to say I'm fully opposed, since I'm also in favor of making sure the ranking are as democratic as possible, and giving more points to non-qualifiers does seem like a potential method to avoid fossilization at the top of the rankings. So I won't take a strong position, but given my current understanding I do still lean against it.

[Farfadillis]

I would want to avoid any situation where a team in the CoH could earn more KPB points than a team in the WC, because after all, rank points are rewarded for doing well, and we can all agree that in theory, even making it to the WC at all is supposed to be better than a great CoH.

A great CoH run already nets more rankings points than a bad WC run, for what it's worth (and I think it's a good thing).

[Recuecn]

I would want to avoid any situation where a team in the CoH could earn more KPB points than a team in the WC, because after all, rank points are rewarded for doing well, and we can all agree that in theory, even making it to the WC at all is supposed to be better than a great CoH.

A great CoH run already nets more rankings points than a bad WC run, for what it's worth (and I think it's a good thing).

Oh you're right, and it's not even confusing when you look at the formula. I'm not sure how I was so wrong about that. I'm not sure it changes my opinion though. Kelssek says it very well I think.

[Savojarna]

and we can all agree that in theory, even making it to the WC at all is supposed to be better than a great CoH.

I actually disagree with this. I think that a win in a "lower" category should be rewarded slightly over a 0-0-3 WC campaign, because while you indeed have less tough competition, you're actually winning something. It's entirely possible to qualify for a World Cup from a third or fourth seed by the sheer luck of one of the top seeds underperforming (arguably, this is how I've made it this time) and/or having the luck of a rather uncompetitive group. This is, of course, absolutely valid and fair; but I think that this doesn't warrant a big jump of the type you see from three KPBs in the middle of the pack. Both times I qualified for the WC as a third or fourth seed, I immediately jumped up about 20 spots. That's at least one qualifier pot. I think that you should at least be able to keep up with that if you win a title, and I also think it makes IC'ly more sense that you'd get more glory for winning the CoH over going 0-0-3 in the WC. Similarly, I think most teams would prefer winning the Europa League to getting fourth in the Champions League group stage IRL - this seems like a similar situation to me.

Regarding playoffs and KPB: Personally I like the idea of moderately rewarding playoffs, as it would take some of the edge away from them. The big disappointment from playoffs comes, in my opinion, from the fact that losing them means such a big setback in climbing the ranks; and the way the ranks work, single big successes are incredibly important for some nations (especially those hovering around Pot 2-4) where one qualification or non-qualification can relatively easily put you up or down a pot. Softening that blow, imo, would lead to climbing being less dependent on occasional qualifications, and as a result, less jumpy. Personally I think that the ranks being less volatile would make climbing more rewarding and less frustrating, and that's a good thing. Additionally, I think it may lead to higher acceptance for playoffs, and personally I support that - playoffs mean more teams can be in contention for longer, which makes RPing the WCQ more engaging and more interesting.

[Audioslavia]

Just to address the point about Cup of Harmony KPB points versus points for teams that do badly in the World Cup:

Over the last eleven completed cycles (WC76-86), an average of 5.73 CoH teams per cycle attained more KPB points than the World Cup team with the worst record. On average, 9.27 World Cup teams finished with fewer KPB points than the best performing CoH team.

I took the Data straight from the WC Rankings sheet.

I don't offer this as evidence for one side or the other, I'm just making sure we're all aware of what the KPBs currently do.

[Audioslavia]

An alternative plan: One that ensures a level of parity between World Cups

• Have [X] KPB points (where [X] is the same figure every cycle) for the hosts to divide among non-qualifiers.
• How the hosts will divide said points must be defined in their bid.
• It is the hosts' duty, at the end of the qualifiers, to provide a list to the rank-keeper, in table format, with the teams on the left and the amount of points they are receiving on the right.
• No team shall be awarded more than 1.5 KPBs.

Four examples:

The no-playoff version: 15 groups of 12. Top two progress to the World Cup. [X] KPB points are divided among the 15 teams that finish in 3rd place. If [X] is 8, this is 0.53 KPBs each.

The playoff version: 20 groups of 9. Top teams progress to the World Cup. 2nd placed teams go to the playoffs. [X] KPB points are divided between the 10 playoff losers. if [X] is 8, this is 0.8KPB each.

And now, the reasons we're here: Two-stage qualifying competitions:

The World Cup 83 version: 24 groups of 7. Top teams progress to the World Cup. 2nd placed teams go into 6 groups of 4. Second stage group winners go to the World Cup. 50% of [X] shared between 6 group runners up (if [X] is 8, this is 0.66 KPB each), 35% for 3rd-placed teams (If [X] is 8, 0.46 each), 15% for 4th placed teams (if 8, 0.2).

trollifiers.png

LOOK UPON THESE WORKS, YE MARGARET, AND DESPAIR

50% of [X] shared among the 2nd placed teams in that 'A' playoff.
35% of [X] shared among the 3rd placed teams in that 'A' playoff.
5% of [X] given to whoever wins that absurd Losers Knockout.
The other 10% given to those teams that got through to that 16-team playoff but lost. These points are in addition to previous ones.

If the hosts don't specify how they would 'spend' their [X] KPB points, those KPBs would be distributed among the teams that finished one place outside the qualifying spots, or the teams that lost the playoffs. Or the WC President could decide. Or the rank keeper. idk.

Extra work for rank-keeper: +2 minutes to badger the hosts for the data and paste it into sheet.
Disadvantage to WC Qualifiers: None. Unless you count the fact that there's now a handful teams ranked 28th to 61st who now have 0.53 more KPBs than they previously did. Still not a patch on the +3 each WC Qualifier got.
Chances of hosts gaming the system: If we have a points cap? None.
Chances of hosts going 'oh hey everyone we'll make sure lots of people get bonus points pls vote for us: None. 'Oh wow 0.03 KPBs thanks'. There is no slippery slope.

[Drawkland]

Don't give the evil bidders ideas, you bastard!

[Savojarna]

I'm not gonna ever bid with it (partially because I know it'd be a nightmare to balance with the ranks) but I actually love the idea of a two-stage qualifying that doesn't eliminate anyone early on, but does sort out top and bottom groups like that. Of course, the playoff thing is dumb, but if both of those were group stages, it'd be fun.