NationStates

Main Nation Ministry wrote:Also, when will the World Cup 83 start? Because after I get out of school, I'm going on a 2 week vacation, where I'm going to be missing a bunch.

Since there are no bids, its going to be a while. Beyond that, nobody knows.

Its reasonable to assume a minimum of 6 weeks between the opening of signups and MD1 of qualifying. In all likelihood, it'll he at least 8 weeks, if not 10 so basically somewhere around July 1st ± a couple weeks or so would be a reasonable estimate.

NSWC Signups wrote:Reçueçn [Recuecn]

Wow, that attention to detail... I probably don't even get that right half the time.

News media reporting today that IRL FIFA will not expand the IRL 2022 World Cup to 48 teams. Guess we don't have to worry about crossing a bridge that isn't going to be there for the NSWC.

95X wrote:News media reporting today that IRL FIFA will not expand the IRL 2022 World Cup to 48 teams. Guess we don't have to worry about crossing a bridge that isn't going to be there for the NSWC.

Still in place for 2026.

Eastfield Lodge wrote:

95X wrote:News media reporting today that IRL FIFA will not expand the IRL 2022 World Cup to 48 teams. Guess we don't have to worry about crossing a bridge that isn't going to be there for the NSWC.

Still in place for 2026.

Yea, but since the 2022 World Cup is in December 2022, we have at least 3.5 full years before we gotta deal with that here.

viewforum.php?f=7

DBC signups are a go. Reminder that it is a first come, first served tournament.

After some extensive research from Farfadillis, it has been discovered that the Points Per Game for qualified nations, since moving to the new forum from Jolt (excluding World Cup 54 due to the weird qualifiers), is in fact nearly 2.35 points per game. This raises a large issue in that hosts are given 2 points per game as their qualifying cycle, and thus are being heavily penalized, to the tune of almost 5 KPBs in the next ranking following the conclusion of the Qualifiers that they host. As such, I would like to propose that in light of this empirical data that does support the long held belief that hosts, particularly high ranked hosts, are penalized for hosting, that the Points Per Game allocation to those hosts for Qualifiers be raised in accordance with this data.

WC 47: 2.27380952
WC 48: 2.32142857
WC 49: 2.31041667
WC 50: 2.38166667
WC 51: 2.17962963
WC 52: 2.47272727
WC 53: 2.29074074
WC 54: Excluded
WC 55: 2.26333333
WC 56: 2.38809524
WC 57: 2.44375
WC 58: 2.3125
WC 59: 2.36666667
WC 60: 2.38095238
WC 61: 2.32708333
WC 62: 2.36428571
WC 63: 2.37037037
WC 64: 2.43148148
WC 65: 2.38333333
WC 66: 2.48333333
WC 67: 2.29791667
WC 68: 2.43571429
WC 69: 2.41428571
WC 70: 2.35208333
WC 71: 2.35714286
WC 72: 2.35
WC 73: 2.39444444
WC 74: 2.38611111
WC 75: 2.2
WC 76: 2.31944444
WC 77: 2.38333333
WC 78: 2.35416667
WC 79: 2.38703704
WC 80: 2.14074074
WC 81: 2.50925926
WC 82: 2.14814815

Mean = 2.3478694942623495

I recognize I have no say in this at all, and as a newcomer, my input might not be wanted. But here's my two cents

I think Valanora's suggestion makes perfect sense. Choosing a single constant to maintain a simple calculation is good, and I don't see a it as a problem that lower-ranked hosts might get a little boost. If anything, I think that's a positive--it makes sense to help out lower ranked players who are contributing to the community as much as to host the WC. If anything, the number could be higher than the 2.35ppg figure, since I would guess a lot of hosts are higher ranked and would get much more ppg than just the average.

edit: left out a word

I think it is absolutely fair that hosts of the WC get a relative points credit that is equivalent to the winners of qualifying groups (~2.3-2.5/match) 2.3 would come out to 42 points.
In WCQ 82, seven group winners had =>42 points while the other 8 had an average of 37 points.

Should it be an absolute number (40, 40.5, 41, 41.5, etc.) or should there be a sliding scale maybe depending on the number of entrants (<140=x, 141-150=y, 151-170=z, >171=a, etc.)??

I don't know. But I see the logic in the numbers and would not oppose a reasonable change.

As the variant for each individual tournament is wild, I would prefer a flat number rather than some complex formula that changes and further burdens those trying to maintain the ranks. Given that there is variance, a 2.25 or 2.3 change seems like it would be quite fair.

Valanora wrote:As the variant for each individual tournament is wild, I would prefer a flat number rather than some complex formula that changes and further burdens those trying to maintain the ranks. Given that there is variance, a 2.25 or 2.3 change seems like it would be quite fair.

I support this suggestion.

Valanora wrote:As the variant for each individual tournament is wild, I would prefer a flat number rather than some complex formula that changes and further burdens those trying to maintain the ranks. Given that there is variance, a 2.25 or 2.3 change seems like it would be quite fair.

Of course, simple is best. That was just a thought I had that I threw out as a talking point.

My preference, if there's a way to mostly automate it via the rankings spreadsheet, would be for the hosts getting the average points of all 30 qualifiers for their WC.

Otherwise, it would make sense to use the historical average instead.

Valanora wrote:As the variant for each individual tournament is wild, I would prefer a flat number rather than some complex formula that changes and further burdens those trying to maintain the ranks. Given that there is variance, a 2.25 or 2.3 change seems like it would be quite fair.

I would support this idea as well.

Yeah, I think host nations are essentially taking on an unpaid job with extremely high standards, all for the enjoyment of the overall community. We should be appreciating their efforts instead of de facto penalizing them.

95X wrote:Yeah, I think host nations are essentially taking on an unpaid job with extremely high standards, all for the enjoyment of the overall community. We should be appreciating their efforts instead of de facto penalizing them.

This is well put. I think we should even consider giving the host nations an even bigger PPG allocation. Perhaps up to 2.5.

Given the data shown, a bonus of 2.35-2.4 PPG seems fair. Taking the data for each cup to 2dp, the median average is 2.36 and the modal is effectively 2.385 (with rounding, 2.38 and 2.39 both occur four times).

I've come up with a table of points totals allocated to hosts auto-qualifying under a bonus (which I've called Qualifying Points Equivalent, or QPE) in this range, rounding to the nearest point, based on numbers of games between 10 and 30 (assuming double round robin one-round qualifying). This is based on rounding to nearest integer after applying a 2.37 modifier (ie approximately in the midrange).

Games     QPE     Multiplier
10        24      2.40
12        28      2.33
14        33      2.36
16        38      2.38
18        43      2.39
20        47      2.35
22        52      2.36
24        56      2.33
26        62      2.38
28        66      2.36
30        71      2.37

Thoughts?

I have a question.

Am I allowed to transfer country rankings to another nation even if there's no IC relation between the two nations? When I transferred Prusy Krolewskie and Southern Democratic States rankings to the Alpine Union, the Alpine Union was the IC successor of both.

But now I'm tired of the Alpine Union, my leagues are too big i'm gonna reduce them. I wanna completely change my team names too and I wanna role play with a new nation. I have thought of an half french canadian and half polish nation with some americans and croats. This nation would use the same players names but it wouldn't have any IC ties with the Alpine Union.

Can I transfer the Alpine Union's rankings to Terre Septentrionale or I'm not allowed because of no IC ties?
The Alpine Union would also withdraw from the World Cup.

Union of Socialist Alpine Republics wrote:I have a question.

Am I allowed to transfer country rankings to another nation even if there's no IC relation between the two nations? When I transferred Prusy Krolewskie and Southern Democratic States rankings to the Alpine Union, the Alpine Union was the IC successor of both.

But now I'm tired of the Alpine Union, my leagues are too big i'm gonna reduce them. I wanna completely change my team names too and I wanna role play with a new nation. I have thought of an half french canadian and half polish nation with some americans and croats. This nation would use the same players names but it wouldn't have any IC ties with the Alpine Union.

Can I transfer the Alpine Union's rankings to Terre Septentrionale or I'm not allowed because of no IC ties?
The Alpine Union would also withdraw from the World Cup.

There generally has to be IC ties. If the players are the same people IC-ly and moved to another country for whatever reason, that would probably be acceptable - I seem to recall the entire Free Republics team defecting to Falatulu at one point during a political crisis, Falatulu then inherited FFR's rank. When the crisis resolved, they returned to FFR, who got its rank back. However, if they were different players who coincidentally had the same names, and there was no other connection, that probably wouldn't be enough.

South Covello wrote:

Union of Socialist Alpine Republics wrote:I have a question.

Am I allowed to transfer country rankings to another nation even if there's no IC relation between the two nations? When I transferred Prusy Krolewskie and Southern Democratic States rankings to the Alpine Union, the Alpine Union was the IC successor of both.

But now I'm tired of the Alpine Union, my leagues are too big i'm gonna reduce them. I wanna completely change my team names too and I wanna role play with a new nation. I have thought of an half french canadian and half polish nation with some americans and croats. This nation would use the same players names but it wouldn't have any IC ties with the Alpine Union.

Can I transfer the Alpine Union's rankings to Terre Septentrionale or I'm not allowed because of no IC ties?
The Alpine Union would also withdraw from the World Cup.

There generally has to be IC ties. If the players are the same people IC-ly and moved to another country for whatever reason, that would probably be acceptable - I seem to recall the entire Free Republics team defecting to Falatulu at one point during a political crisis, Falatulu then inherited FFR's rank. When the crisis resolved, they returned to FFR, who got its rank back. However, if they were different players who coincidentally had the same names, and there was no other connection, that probably wouldn't be enough.

Falatulu seceded from the FFR then later rejoined the FFR but that pretty much describes the precedent regarding rank transfers. I remember a rank transfer where there was "too little" IC connection being controversial a few years back so I'm guessing transferring rank without an IC connection would not be allowed.

If you don't enjoy RPing your existing nation and think you'd enjoy the new nation more, you can always enter the new nation as a puppet or just enter it instead of the older nation. If it hasn't entered the BoF before, the new nation would then be BoF eligible.

South Covello wrote:There generally has to be IC ties. If the players are the same people IC-ly and moved to another country for whatever reason, that would probably be acceptable - I seem to recall the entire Free Republics team defecting to Falatulu at one point during a political crisis, Falatulu then inherited FFR's rank. When the crisis resolved, they returned to FFR, who got its rank back. However, if they were different players who coincidentally had the same names, and there was no other connection, that probably wouldn't be enough.

My players will be different players who coincidentally have the same names.

Saintland wrote:Falatulu seceded from the FFR then later rejoined the FFR but that pretty much describes the precedent regarding rank transfers. I remember a rank transfer where there was "too little" IC connection being controversial a few years back so I'm guessing transferring rank without an IC connection would not be allowed.

If you don't enjoy RPing your existing nation and think you'd enjoy the new nation more, you can always enter the new nation as a puppet or just enter it instead of the older nation. If it hasn't entered the BoF before, the new nation would then be BoF eligible.

Ok I'll enter this nation and maybe withdraw the Alpine Union.

Time to open a can of worms in the off-season. I want to preface this by saying that I'm not saying that UICA is too slow and WCs are coming too fast; this is just about how to adapt to the ratio of UICA:WC that we have had for the past like three RL years.

I think it's obvious that we haven't had a ratio of two UICA seasons to every one World Cup for a while, and anyone aging their players through a 1:2 ratio has had to fudge a lot of numbers to deal with desynch. We're all dealing with that desynch in different ways, and that's translating to the fact that... nobody really has any idea how old anyone is meant to be anymore. When the seasons ran more in that synch, it was relatively easy to track who aged .5:1, who aged 1:2, who aged 2:4 and who aged in real time / not at all / whatever edge-case. Now some people are only aging with every UICA or WC and forcing the other to fit, some are going 2:2 or 1:1, I'm aging 1.5:2 which is weird as shit and I acknowledge that... et cetera. And we're getting ages wrong a lot, and that's kind of very important in the domestic game.

Do we just want to bite the bullet and try and roll out a near-universal timescale? I'm not advocating forcing anyone to adhere to anything, but a loose, standard 'canon' of how long it takes between seasons and World Cups. A 'default' option, from which people can deviate if they wish - but a few opt-outs are going to be easy to keep track of, rather than everyone just having their own way of dealing with the desynch.

Right now, my suggestion for a 'default' would be 2:3. It's the best compromise between the most common 1:2 and 2:4 systems, though it might alienate 1-year-per-WC users. It uses whole numbers. It also preserves the feeling that, like... absolutely a WC should be further apart than a single season, and really, a season can't stretch over more than two years.

EDIT: A few people have brought up that UICA time and WCC time don't necessarily need to be in synch at all. I'd say that Andreas Swoboda being 27 and reaching the prime of his career in UICA, and 33 and approaching his twilight years in the WCC, at the same time, creates very obvious RP and team construction difficulties.

Nephara wrote:Time to open a can of worms in the off-season. I want to preface this by saying that I'm not saying that UICA is too slow and WCs are coming too fast; this is just about how to adapt to the ratio of UICA:WC that we have had for the past like three RL years.

I think it's obvious that we haven't had a ratio of two UICA seasons to every one World Cup for a while, and anyone aging their players through a 1:2 ratio has had to fudge a lot of numbers to deal with desynch. We're all dealing with that desynch in different ways, and that's translating to the fact that... nobody really has any idea how old anyone is meant to be anymore. When the seasons ran more in that synch, it was relatively easy to track who aged .5:1, who aged 1:2, who aged 2:4 and who aged in real time / not at all / whatever edge-case. Now some people are only aging with every UICA or WC and forcing the other to fit, some are going 2:2 or 1:1, I'm aging 1.5:2 which is weird as shit and I acknowledge that... et cetera. And we're getting ages wrong a lot, and that's kind of very important in the domestic game.

Do we just want to bite the bullet and try and roll out a near-universal timescale? I'm not advocating forcing anyone to adhere to anything, but a loose, standard 'canon' of how long it takes between seasons and World Cups. A 'default' option, from which people can deviate if they wish - but a few opt-outs are going to be easy to keep track of, rather than everyone just having their own way of dealing with the desynch.

Right now, my suggestion for a 'default' would be 2:3. It's the best compromise between the most common 1:2 and 2:4 systems, though it might alienate 1-year-per-WC users. It uses whole numbers. It also preserves the feeling that, like... absolutely a WC should be further apart than a single season, and really, a season can't stretch over more than two years.

Absolutely not. Let people do what they want. If they want one year per World Cup, great. If they want two, great. If they want four, great. If they want their nation to exist outside the fabric of space and time making all this irrelevant, great. If they want to have a time skip of 37 years between World Cups to help their RP, great. Let people do what they want. That's the magic of NS.

It defeats the whole purpose of people’s individual calendars to make a default system for aging. And then you got o remember some people like Bonesa don’t even use IC calendars and use rl months so keeping our individual systems despite how jumbled up they are is best

what if people actually read the part where i said 'people are free to do whatever, this is just to have a default that people could opt out of, which is a shitton easier than having to remember what specific way every single nation opts into'

what if people read that part and didn't strawman

And, Covello, IIRC you haven't transferred anyone abroad in literal RL years. Nobody else has to keep track of your ages, so you don't actually have a dog in this fight. This only affects people who do both domestic and international football. Velestria, you had to ask me how old my players were literally yesterday. What if you didn't have to do that?