The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Stellonia]

What home aualifier? The group draw has been done, stellonia and greg are in different groups

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

[The Sword Bloke]

What home aualifier? The group draw has been done, stellonia and greg are in different groups

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

I'd not be competing in amWorld Cup with 161 games vs 161 different teams.

[Stellonia]

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

I'd not be competing in amWorld Cup with 161 games vs 161 different teams.

I meant each other team in the qualifying group. The sizes of each group should remain the same, I suppose.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

What home aualifier? The group draw has been done, stellonia and greg are in different groups

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

That's not how it works usually, though the Quebec-FFR bid a couple cycles ago did propose something similar - two qualifying group stages, each with the format you proposed. It was done more so qualifying didn't drag on forever than for IC reasons though. And that bid lost. It could happen someday - there's no rule against it - but it was pretty poorly received when Queb and FFR proposed it and probably would be again.

[The Sword Bloke]

I'd not be competing in amWorld Cup with 161 games vs 161 different teams.

I meant each other team in the qualifying group. The sizes of each group should remain the same, I suppose.

I get your point, but I'm personally not a fan, because I personally like the longer format. It would be too quick for my liking, and teams would get eliminated/qualified in such a short amount of time.

[Eastfield Lodge]

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

That's not how it works usually, though the Quebec-FFR bid a couple cycles ago did propose something similar - two qualifying group stages, each with the format you proposed. It was done more so qualifying didn't drag on forever than for IC reasons though. And that bid lost. It could happen someday - there's no rule against it - but it was pretty poorly received when Queb and FFR proposed it and probably would be again.

World Cup 54 had two-stage qualifying - first stage had 5/6 team home-and-away, top two advanced to 10 groups of 6, which was a single most hosted on neutral territory (each group was held in a different nation, but scorination was done by the two co-hosts). Top three advanced to Finals.

[Nephara]

What home aualifier? The group draw has been done, stellonia and greg are in different groups

We are discussing what would happen if Stellonia and Gregoryisgodistan were to be drawn into the same group during World Cup qualifying. I suppose that it would be better if each team only played one match with each other team in its group, preferably at a neutral ground.

It really wouldn't. There's no recent precedent for it, and it makes no IC sense to deprive a nation's own supporters from watching their side.

[Free Republics]

Single round robin, neutral site qualifying would be a viable solution to enable a 10 or 15 group format when the number of teams signed up is too large to viably run such a format. While 15 groups of 11 was used in several World Cups years ago, there's no way that a 22 matchday qualifying format is going to win a host vote. The usual formats that you'll see these days are:

Marathon Qualifying: groups of 9/10, 18 matchdays, typically around 20 groups with playoffs (though 15 groups of 10 is an option if the numbers are low enough)
The Middle Ground: groups of 7/8, 14 matchdays, 20 groups if numbers are low, 24 if numbers are high with playoffs either way (with 24, the options are either 2 rounds of playoffs for the second placed teams as used in WC60 or at least some group winners participating in playoffs as they did in WCs 68 and 69)
Winner Take All: 30 groups of 5/6, 10 matchdays, group winners advance (the WC66 format) or alternately the format proposed for 180 teams in the WC 68 bid (group winners have to win 1 playoff to advance but second place teams have to win 2)

The main alternates that have been floated about are:

Two-tiered formats: Groups of no more than 6 for first round if double round robin is used, second round is single round robin if groups are larger than 4 (complicates the rankings and determining invites for the Cup of Harmony). Actually used for WC54.
Single round robin group stages: only really viable for 10/15 groups of more than 10, but there's strong opposition to neutral site qualifying so I don't recommend proposing this
Double matchday scorinations (Audioslavia's idea originally, iirc): Scorinate 2 matchdays for all but the first and last matchdays, allowing for groups larger than 10 and a double round robin format (those who RP match reports tend to hate this idea and its never been proposed in a bid except as a contingency)
Casaran: The one everybody either loves or hates which narrowly lost the host votes for WCs 61 and 67. Works with any signup number that is divisible by 2. Basically, teams are paired with opponents that have the same number of points for enough matchdays to simulate a triple elimination tournament (plus or minus 1 to ensure an even number of matchdays so that everybody can play the same number of home and away matches). You just don't know who you're playing more than 1 matchday in advance, but you could end up playing anybody. Scales really well for large signup numbers allowing shorter qualifying and can be paired with a second round if necessary. Tiebreaker playoffs between teams with the same number of points as the last qualifier can be complicated. Very challenging for the hosts. Tends to produce pages upon pages of debate whenever it is mentioned. Was used for BoFs 42 and 52 as well as at least 1 Cup of Harmony before that (and I've used it for major tournaments in other sports), but has not actually been used for WC qualifying, yet.
Cutting most/all puppets to reduce the numbers: Was done in the past, but probably wouldn't be well received today.
The monstrosity that I proposed for WC71: Used by Equestrian States for a World Bowl and rightly panned when I proposed it for WC qualifying. Should never be proposed again. Don't blame Quebec for this, as it is my idea to do it, not his.
Regional Qualifying: What is actually done in RL, but not practical in NS because A) regions are fluid (you can move to any region you want, whenever you want, unless it is passworded and you don't know the password), B) 3 sports regions contain most of the top teams and C) the difficulty of figuring out how many teams qualify from which regions. In addition, it might be boring for some since we face our regional rivals in regular regional tournaments.

If there was a single qualifying format that didn't have any drawbacks, we'd use it for every World Cup. The problem is that every format is flawed in one way or another and everybody has their preferred format, formats that they can tolerate and formats that they absolutely hate. If enough voters hate any particular format, it can't be used because bids proposing it would lose to the reopen host bids option and there's no way of knowing whether an untested format is unacceptable to the majority until you put it to a vote and host bidders generally prefer to play it safe to reduce the chances that they might lose a host vote.

[The Jeckish Union]

I've spoken with a chosen backup cohost and they will be taking over the hosting duties for Equestrian States until such a time as EQS returns. Their nation will be participating in the qualifiers as planned and shall be scorinating the first half of the qualifiers. As such, the roster thread will go up tonight and the RP thread + draw should go up no later than Thursday night. MD1 will be on Monday, as to avoid clashing with the American Independence Day celebration. That is all, thank you for your patience.

I'm confused....

[Osarius]

Osarius 2–3 Lymantatia

Cotton: It looks like Jermain Lewis is repeating the "lose the first game of qualifying" strategy he employed with Osarius during the last World Cup.
Pepper: It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him.


Fun fact: First home defeat at Mount Crown Stadium under Jermain Lewis.

Can you say "RP talking point"..?

[Lons]

My apologies to my fellow Group 13 groupmates, I seriously overestimated the time it took for this to start. Whoops~

[Valanora]

I'm confused....

That was the plan until EQS confirmed that they could continue hosting and so I adjusted it and the schedule, which I had assumed everyone read when I posted it. Next time I'll be sure to post such an amendment more explicitly.

[Cosumar]

According to the schedule, I should've played Torisakia on MD1, not Stellonia.

[Nurkama]

I'm frustrated because I'm too lazy to RP, yet I want to participate.

[Valanora]

According to the schedule, I should've played Torisakia on MD1, not Stellonia.

I see the error now. You're in the 8 spot in xkoranate but the 7 spot in OP. I'll be moving you to the proper spot in the OP and apologize for the mistake and confusion.

[Krytenia]

I'm frustrated because I'm too lazy to RP, yet I want to participate.

To participate is to RP. One cannot have one without the other.

Your problem is of your own making, grasshopper.

[Jeruselem]

Jeruselem's leaky defense letting in 3 goals from 279th ranked team. Nothing has changed.

[Chiata]

I'm frustrated because I'm too lazy to RP, yet I want to participate.

I'm like that sometimes. Just start writing and you'll get some ideas. The more you write, the more fun it will get. For me, I just start with my newspaper title Chiata Suns. Since I already put all the format tags on it, I might as well make an RP, right?

Write about your interests. I like military books, so in one Qualifying I wrote about a war between Chiata and Deals vs Carialus. I also like poems, so I could make up a song, like what The Holy Empire is doing. (which by the way is really cool)

Find your interest and write about it. There's more to RP than match reports!

[Krytenia]

According to Valanora, I broke NSFS. Sorry, Bears Armed.

[Stellonia]

According to the schedule, I should've played Torisakia on MD1, not Stellonia.

By the way, we beat them 1-0 thanks to a first-half strike from Tselaminga. We, the 299^th in the world, beat them, the 43^th in the world. At their stadium. In front of their own countrymen.
Do you think that this error may have contributed to my victory? You never know...

[Stellonia]

I was also thinking of hosting Cup of Harmony LXXIII and Baptism of Fire LX. We are permitted to host them on our own, and they don't require massive stadia.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

I was also thinking of hosting Cup of Harmony LXXIII and Baptism of Fire LX. We are permitted to host them on our own, and they don't require massive stadia.

You'd probably want more experience before bidding to host for a major event like this. And also a co-host. Although the latter isn't required except for the World Cup itself, I'd be reluctant to vote for a solo bid for either of those tournaments no matter how much experience the bidder had. It's a lot of work. Go get some experience hosting lesser tournaments, then maybe launch a joint bid with someone who has more experience than you. It's going to take a while before you're ready to host something like this. Don't rush in all at once.

[Polar Islandstates]

I was also thinking of hosting Cup of Harmony LXXIII and Baptism of Fire LX. We are permitted to host them on our own, and they don't require massive stadia.

Stadia are irrelevant. Any user could waltz up and say they've got a 300,000 seater stadium and are therefore perfect for hosting duties, but that's not the point. It's experience and proof you can use a scorinator that wins bids. Rarely have ICly decisions influenced host votes, except where two equally good bids face off against each other, perhaps.

[Apox]

I am considering putting up a bid for the Cup of Harmony, but, as I know there is a gap of a few days right in the middle of the projected running time, I am looking for a partner in crime to bid with (preferably someone with a fair bit of experience). Feel free to get in touch with my by TG or over IRC if I'm about if you might be interested in taking this idea further.

[Ceni]

As usual, Ceni has to deal with its notorious bad luck