World Cup 94: Red, White, and Blue (bid) [KSK/GRÆ]

[Graintfjall]

RL World Cup 94 was a key moment in increasing the popularity of soccer in the USA. So it makes sense that for NS World Cup 94, the bid is coming from a European and a Canadian. Oh. But at least they both have red, white, and blue in their NS nation flags.

Kelssek is one of the most experienced and accomplished hosts in NSS history, having hosted 4 ice hockey World Cups, 2 rugby union World Cups, 1 Summer and 2 Winter Olympics, World Championships in alpine skiing and aquatics, and Cup of Harmony 77 as part of the World Cup 85 "Vilitan plan", not to mention being on the IFCF committee and running the HCL. Kelssek is a socialist republic and one of the most richly developed countries in terms of RP background and worldbuilding in all of NSS.

Græntfjall is such a resoundingly trusted and popular host that they only narrowly lost the bid to host the most recent WGPC, and has also hosted some other stuff, including World Cup 91. Græntfjall is krakens.

By electing us host, you would be signing off on permitting us a little wiggle room with respect to format as it's difficult to promise specifics before signups have been cut off. That said, here are the general principles:

• A 32 team finals. With both hosts autoqualifying, this means 30 teams will qualify.
• Ideally, 15 qualifying groups. We are tantalizingly in sight of 152 signups. We could probably hang on for 167. If neither looks likely alternate formats with a slightly different number of groups and a few unlucky 3rd place teams missing out could be explored. In terms of pruning signups mains would take preference over puppets.
• Assuming 15 groups, top teams autoqualify, 2nd and 3rd placed teams go to single-legged playoffs. These will be on neutral territory.
• In group stages, the tiebreakers will be: points, goal difference, head to head record, head to head goal difference, IC coin flip [OOC tiebreaker scorinated using RP bonus only]. Three-way ties will be split by placing the tied teams in a minigroup and working down the tiebreakers.
• NSFS will be used for the entire tournament.
• 2 matchdays per scorination at 48 hour intervals. The last MD will be a single game.
• Split group stage scorination, not shared. What this means is Græntfjall will scorinate all the groups for about half of qualifying, and Kelssek all the groups for the other half.
• Should either us enter a puppet we will find a third party scorinator for their group stage games; we will scorinate each other's finals games and find a third party should we play against each other.
• Finals playoffs will be unseeded i.e. predetermined to be A1vD2, B1vC2, no teams swapping host countries until the final/3PPO.

We are both believers in the philosophy of "enough is as good as a feast" when it comes to RPing. You do not need to write very long RPs to earn substantial RP bonus. In general, qualities that help earn a good RP bonus are: interactivity (showing you have read others’ RPs and rosters); salience (it is fine to write your own storylines or pursue non-football stories, but if there is no sense at all in your RP that a football World Cup is even happening, it may be difficult to justify absolute max bonus); and good RP etiquette (respecting permissions, respecting hosts, taking bad results in reasonable grace). Please don't use AI text generators, or if you do, at least be honest about what's been done. Please don't plagiarize, from RL sources or other NS players.

The RP bonus system will be as follows:

• One third will be based on the average RP bonus you've gained over the whole WCQs.
• One third will be based on the RP bonus you've gained that cutoff window.
• One third will be based on the highest single day RP bonus you've earned throughout WCQs.

That is also what will be carried over to MD1 of the WC finals. This seems to balance rewarding regular RPing through quals with rewarding writing standout RPs on particular days. I would anticipate around 24 RP bonus points being available across the whole of WCQs, which probably evens out to about 2 points per MD plus a little extra for rosters. Depending on host availability, some general RP bonus data may be made available. That said, I believe the consensus that "most RPs earn over 50% but under 100% RP bonus" is starting to become apparent so there may not be that much value in repeating this ad nauseam.

There is a no roster penalty of 50%. At the halfway mark of qualifying, this will increase to 100%. We would encourage -- though in no way enforce or penalize -- rosters to contain a reasonably straightforward playing 11 and basic info within the first few hundred words; some rosters can be very lengthy and while the effort involved is admirable if it's making it difficult for your opponent to work out your details then it's not fulfilling the main function of a roster. Again, we're not talking penalties or anything like that: just an encouragement.

All RP permissions disputes should be resolved between players and, if this proves impossible, hosts will have the final word. That said, we will not enforce any "choose my scorers: N" permission unless the player's roster contains an RP explanation of why this permission has been chosen. Our sample permission box will not have an option for choosing scorers.

Style modifiers should be posted clearly, preferably on the first or last line of the roster or permissions box. If after a 60 second read of your roster your style modifier is not apparent, we will not use it. Teams can change their style modifier during WCQs a maximum of twice, but must TG the host confirmation.

There will be no extensions for RP cutoffs. RP cutoffs will take place at the designated time or in the designated window and any delay will be solely for the host's benefit.

Cup of Harmony

We're willing to share RP bonus data with CoH hosts.

Discord

Neither of us is likely to be particularly active on the Discord server during the qualifying but both are reachable by TG if needed.

[Legalese]

I like the presenation and a number of the decisions in this (particularly the RP bonus distribution). A few questions:

The RP bonus system will be as follows... That is also what will be carried over to MD1 of the WC finals

For clarity: do you mean the full qualifying bonus will carry over to the finals? If so, will ranks also be updated to reflect qualifying, or will it be pre-qual ranks from start to finish? If not, what will carry over?

NSFS will be used for the entire tournament.

What's the max points value you plan to use -- 69+Possible Bonus, #1 Rank + Possible Bonus, or some other value?
(Also, when you say using NSFS, do you mean the standalone program, or xkoranate with it's implementation of NSFS?)

A 32 team finals. With both hosts autoqualifying, this means 30 teams will qualify.

What was your thinking behind sticking with 32 in the finals?

Thanking you both

[Graintfjall]

For clarity: do you mean the full qualifying bonus will carry over to the finals? If so, will ranks also be updated to reflect qualifying, or will it be pre-qual ranks from start to finish? If not, what will carry over?

That was poorly formatted on my part. It was meant to apply only to the max RP bonus portion of the bonus. Let's say you earn 1.5 RP bonus points pre-MD1, but during WCQs, your best bonus earned 2.1 RP bonus points. Your grade would be 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.7 = 1.7. Someone who did the same pre-MD1 RP, but whose best RP in WCQs earned only 1.5, would have a total grade of 1.5.

The cumulative RP earned during WCQs will not carryover, but the updated ranks will be used.

What's the max points value you plan to use -- 69+Possible Bonus, #1 Rank + Possible Bonus, or some other value?

#1 rank (or #2, in this case) plus possible bonus. That suggests that by the final MD of qualifying maxpoints would be about 52 + 24.

(Also, when you say using NSFS, do you mean the standalone program, or xkoranate with it's implementation of NSFS?)

The latter. xkoranate, NSFS formula, additive multipliers.

What was your thinking behind sticking with 32 in the finals?

I don't think there's a clear consensus in the community on what format a non-32 team finals would have. There's no pressing need for one before 2026, assuming the intention is to map to RL. On a personal note, I hosted the last CoH and it was very well RPed and competitive, so I think that there's still life in that competition for teams 33 on down.

[Independent Athletes from Quebec]

A convincing pair of hosts, and most details are clear and straightforward. Always good.

I do have a question, since Kel did mention on the WCDT that there may be possible scheduling challenges: Around what time do we expect the WCQ to start by any chance? I know this also depends on BoF and whatnot, but are you guys thinking more towards early June or sometime later? Not a problem on my end - just I may be away for second week of June, and it'd be nice to know in advance.

[Graintfjall]

A convincing pair of hosts, and most details are clear and straightforward. Always good.

I do have a question, since Kel did mention on the WCDT that there may be possible scheduling challenges: Around what time do we expect the WCQ to start by any chance? I know this also depends on BoF and whatnot, but are you guys thinking more towards early June or sometime later? Not a problem on my end - just I may be away for second week of June, and it'd be nice to know in advance.

Probably depends on BoF. Looks to me like both bids want to prioritize longer group stages so I would think the BoF might run for 20 or so days? Plus allowing a few days for organizing the vote... I certainly wouldn't think the WCQs would begin before the 2nd week of June.

[Tinhampton]

I am Saint Eleanor. I can support this bid.

[Strike]

Is the 50% penalty permanent or subject to delay?

IE: If Nation Z takes a 50% penalty for not posting a roster by MD1, but posts that roster prior to MD3, during the MD3 scorination does:

A) The roster gets scored normally and the roster penalty is cleared immediately (0% Penalty)
B) The roster gets scored normally but the roster penalty (50%) remains until the half-way point of competition, and then is cleared entirely (0% Penalty) for the second half games
C) The roster gets scored normally but the roster penalty (50%) remains for the duration of the competition
D) The roster does not get scored at all and the nation name is replaced by "Team ##" where "##" corresponds to their ranking
E) Other

Thanks

Also, regardless of the answer, this bid looks swell and happy to support it

Also 2: I recommend you put the Style Mod as a line item in the RP permissions box Template of the Roster thread.

[Graintfjall]

Is the 50% penalty permanent or subject to delay?

IE: If Nation Z takes a 50% penalty for not posting a roster by MD1, but posts that roster prior to MD3, during the MD3 scorination does:

A) The roster gets scored normally and the roster penalty is cleared immediately (0% Penalty)
B) The roster gets scored normally but the roster penalty (50%) remains until the half-way point of competition, and then is cleared entirely (0% Penalty) for the second half games
C) The roster gets scored normally but the roster penalty (50%) remains for the duration of the competition
D) The roster does not get scored at all and the nation name is replaced by "Team ##" where "##" corresponds to their ranking
E) Other

A

Also 2: I recommend you put the Style Mod as a line item in the RP permissions box Template of the Roster thread.

Will do.

Thanks.

[Tumbra]

Excellent bid. Love

[Oberour Ar Moro]

Two questions:

What is the reasoning behind split group stage scorination?

Was there ever any consideration about expanding the finals to more than 32 teams?

[Graintfjall]

Two questions:

What is the reasoning behind split group stage scorination?

Partly because Kelssek may be unavailable for a spell during WCQs so it's easier to have me scorinate that half and him scorinate the half when he returns (I actually think the WC may begin late enough that he will be available anyway, but we'll see).

Also, we're in very different time zones so our scorination windows are likely to be quite far apart, and I think it reduces confusion/disorganization to have one single cutoff time.

Was there ever any consideration about expanding the finals to more than 32 teams?

To be honest, no. I'd like to see more of a consensus (yeah, I know hoping for consensus on NSS is probably a fool's errand!) about what format a >32 team final should have before bidding to host with one.

[Valanora]

The bid looks solid and any questions I had have already been addressed.

[Farfadillis]

I just want to chime in to say that I've co-hosted World Cups with both users (a Vilitan-plan bid in Kelssek's case) and both were absolutely impeccable and professional co-hosts.

[Commonwealth of Baker Park]

About qualifying playoffs--what's the thinking behind neutral site/single match? I'm neither opposed or in favor, but curious about a change from the norm.

[Graintfjall]

About qualifying playoffs--what's the thinking behind neutral site/single match? I'm neither opposed or in favor, but curious about a change from the norm.

IRL WC playoffs were single game this edition (I know they've been two-legged in the past, but the point is it's not totally out of whack with RL). And we're using NSFS which doesn't implement as strong a home advantage so having home/away ties isn't as relevant.

[PotatoFarmers]

First round of questions:

1) On tiebreakers. In a parallel world where you hosted the WCQ tournament per your bid, the qualification group stage ends with 5 nations tied on points and goal difference. We then move on to head-to-head record. In particular, the record between the 5 teams are as per the image below, where left column represents team at home, top row represents team away:

In particular, all 5 teams won 4 H2H games and lost 4 H2H games each, and when comparing H2H goal difference, Gamma has a +1 H2H goal difference; Beta, Delta and Epsilon has 0 H2H goal difference, while Alpha has a -1 H2H goal difference. In that case, how will the tie between Beta, Delta and Epsilon be tie-broken?

2) On RP cutoff times. Approximately what time do both hosts expect to cutoff daily?

3) On RP grading scheme for WCQ.
a) What would be the definition of "average" as in "average RP bonus you've gained over the whole WCQs"? Would it be, "total raw RP bonus gained divided by number of RPs written", "total tabulated RP bonus (using the 1/3 1/3 1/3 system) gained divided by number of RPs written", "total raw RP bonus gained divided by number of RPs windows till date", or "total tabulated RP bonus (using the 1/3 1/3 1/3 system) gained divided by number of RPs windows till date"?
b) Does the average definition above include the current day RP bonus? Eg. If this is the 2nd cutoff, is the average determined by the 1st cutoff bonus and the 2nd cutoff bonus, or merely the 1st cutoff bonus?
c) Similar to part (a), does the "highest single day RP bonus" refer to the raw bonus, or the tabulated RP bonus?
d) Does the 2 points per MD refer to 2 raw RP bonus points (therefore total tabulated RP bonus = 6), or 2 tabulated RP bonus points?
e) Apart from what was mentioned ("seems to balance rewarding regular RPing through quals with rewarding writing standout RPs on particular days") what was the hosts' thought process in deciding on this particular RP bonus scheme? Did the hosts consider the downsides to this RP bonus scheme, and if so, how do you think you have/will mitigated these downsides?

4) On RP grading scheme for WC. What will be the RP grading scheme for the WC proper? The bonus system explained that this will involve RP bonus averages and highest RP bonus over WCQs, but it does not explain anything about WCs.

5) On RP cutoff schedule. Given that for a double round-robin format, there will always be an even number of matchdays, and the hosts mentioned that "the last MD will be a single game", when will the other single MD be scheduled for?

[Graintfjall]

First round of questions:

OK, I'll do my best, but before firing off a second round, please consider which questions would affect which way you'd vote on the bid or not.

1) On tiebreakers. In a parallel world where you hosted the WCQ tournament per your bid, the qualification group stage ends with 5 nations tied on points and goal difference. We then move on to head-to-head record. In particular, the record between the 5 teams are as per the image below, where left column represents team at home, top row represents team away:
(Image)
In particular, all 5 teams won 4 H2H games and lost 4 H2H games each, and when comparing H2H goal difference, Gamma has a +1 H2H goal difference; Beta, Delta and Epsilon has 0 H2H goal difference, while Alpha has a -1 H2H goal difference. In that case, how will the tie between Beta, Delta and Epsilon be tie-broken?

What would your preferred solution be?

2) On RP cutoff times. Approximately what time do both hosts expect to cutoff daily?

I can't predict this far ahead. If the beginning of WCQs overlaps with the end of WCoH I would want to put those two cutoffs far apart so probably some time in the late evening UK time. I imagine K's will be several hours later than that but I'll let him answer there, though again he may not be able to predict now depending on his availability. Regardless cutoff times will be posted clearly in advance; I usually edit them into the RP thread title.

3) On RP grading scheme for WCQ.
a) What would be the definition of "average" as in "average RP bonus you've gained over the whole WCQs"? Would it be, "total raw RP bonus gained divided by number of RPs written", "total tabulated RP bonus (using the 1/3 1/3 1/3 system) gained divided by number of RPs written", "total raw RP bonus gained divided by number of RPs windows till date", or "total tabulated RP bonus (using the 1/3 1/3 1/3 system) gained divided by number of RPs windows till date"?

Bolded answer.

b) Does the average definition above include the current day RP bonus?

Yes.

c) Similar to part (a), does the "highest single day RP bonus" refer to the raw bonus, or the tabulated RP bonus?

Raw.

d) Does the 2 points per MD refer to 2 raw RP bonus points (therefore total tabulated RP bonus = 6), or 2 tabulated RP bonus points?

The 2 points was an approximation, to be clear. I think I'm starting to lose the track of what distinction you're drawing, but it was meant to mean raw.

e) Apart from what was mentioned ("seems to balance rewarding regular RPing through quals with rewarding writing standout RPs on particular days") what was the hosts' thought process in deciding on this particular RP bonus scheme? Did the hosts consider the downsides to this RP bonus scheme, and if so, how do you think you have/will mitigated these downsides?

I played around with a few different formulas. I wanted to use a lower overall bonus than I did in WC91 because we are using NSFS and driving the maxpoints too high can cause a lot of wacky randomness. I'm sure there are downsides to this as there would be to any; if you have suggestions on how to ameliorate them I'd be happy to listen as I respect your Excel-fu.

4) On RP grading scheme for WC. What will be the RP grading scheme for the WC proper? The bonus system explained that this will involve RP bonus averages and highest RP bonus over WCQs, but it does not explain anything about WCs

.
Same as for WCQs, except that the max carries over from WCQs and the daily max will probably be set a little higher. I'm thinking more like 3 per day in the finals. (Again an approximate figure!)

5) On RP cutoff schedule. Given that for a double round-robin format, there will always be an even number of matchdays, and the hosts mentioned that "the last MD will be a single game", when will the other single MD be scheduled for?

Probably MD1, or the last MD of the first half of qualifying. It depends a little on how Kelssek and I split the group stage qualifying. For now let's say MD1 is the most likely choice.

[Graintfjall]

OK disregard that I suck cocks.

Turns out Kelssek will* be able to sync his cutoff time to mine. Therefore, we're probably looking at cutoffs about 21:00 UTC.

* Should. As I say, by electing us hosts, you're allowing us a little wiggle room so this isn't an absolute guarantee.

[PotatoFarmers]

First round of questions:

OK, I'll do my best, but before firing off a second round, please consider which questions would affect which way you'd vote on the bid or not.

To be fair, this second round is intended to be a follow-up to the previous first round of questions, and I have generally asked most of them to previous hosts as well where they aren't as clear.

1) On tiebreakers. In a parallel world where you hosted the WCQ tournament per your bid, the qualification group stage ends with 5 nations tied on points and goal difference. We then move on to head-to-head record. In particular, the record between the 5 teams are as per the image below, where left column represents team at home, top row represents team away:
(Image)
In particular, all 5 teams won 4 H2H games and lost 4 H2H games each, and when comparing H2H goal difference, Gamma has a +1 H2H goal difference; Beta, Delta and Epsilon has 0 H2H goal difference, while Alpha has a -1 H2H goal difference. In that case, how will the tie between Beta, Delta and Epsilon be tie-broken?

What would your preferred solution be?

This is my 11th cycle in NSS, and I have seen different ways to answer this question. I have no preference, but post-Tiebreaker Gate I have decided to find some way to clarify this issue so that something similiar doesn't happen again.

c) Similar to part (a), does the "highest single day RP bonus" refer to the raw bonus, or the tabulated RP bonus?

Raw.

d) Does the 2 points per MD refer to 2 raw RP bonus points (therefore total tabulated RP bonus = 6), or 2 tabulated RP bonus points?

The 2 points was an approximation, to be clear. I think I'm starting to lose the track of what distinction you're drawing, but it was meant to mean raw.

Its a huge difference - if 2 was the net RP bonus, then a person's work daily is effectively 0.67 + a small portion from the average RP bonus. Which means one person's work would effectively cap at around 1 bonus point after a very solid MD1 RP.

e) Apart from what was mentioned ("seems to balance rewarding regular RPing through quals with rewarding writing standout RPs on particular days") what was the hosts' thought process in deciding on this particular RP bonus scheme? Did the hosts consider the downsides to this RP bonus scheme, and if so, how do you think you have/will mitigated these downsides?

I played around with a few different formulas. I wanted to use a lower overall bonus than I did in WC91 because we are using NSFS and driving the maxpoints too high can cause a lot of wacky randomness. I'm sure there are downsides to this as there would be to any; if you have suggestions on how to ameliorate them I'd be happy to listen as I respect your Excel-fu.

Thanks, but I think there are indeed some concerns with a stateful RP bonus system that I previously garnered from the WCQ92 formula and the resulting tournament. I might tidy up the concerns and present them separately in a readable format.

Thank you for the quick response.

[Milk Island]

I support Kesselk's bid

[Graintfjall]

This is my 11th cycle in NSS, and I have seen different ways to answer this question. I have no preference, but post-Tiebreaker Gate I have decided to find some way to clarify this issue so that something similiar doesn't happen again.

But I don't think this is "tiebreaker gate"? Or at least, even if the full FIFA rules (except for goals for) had been followed in your example the tie still wouldn't have been broken?

I think the situation you're positing is far more unlikely than what happened in "tiebreaker gate" but if it did happen then I guess, a three-way round robin OOC scorinated using RP bonus only. Make a mini-table of those results. Repeat until the ties are broken. If you have a better approach though I'm sure we're open to suggestions.

Its a huge difference - if 2 was the net RP bonus, then a person's work daily is effectively 0.67 + a small portion from the average RP bonus. Which means one person's work would effectively cap at around 1 bonus point after a very solid MD1 RP.

OK. I'll look into it.

Thanks, but I think there are indeed some concerns with a stateful RP bonus system that I previously garnered from the WCQ92 formula and the resulting tournament. I might tidy up the concerns and present them separately in a readable format.

I don't know what a stateful RP bonus is but of course, if you can see a conceptual flaw in the formula, please do share. I'd far rather tweak it now than find out only during/after the tournament.

[Graintfjall]

Poaf, I'm sorry if I came across adversarial. I appreciate your attention to detail and do genuinely respect your ability with formulas and spreadsheets -- your input is definitely appreciated.

I think I've boiled down to the core issue you're getting at.

Version A
Version B

Version B is the crude implementation of our formula. It leads to features like RPs from teams who haven't yet RPed (including everyone on MD1) weighing much more heavily; team RP bonuses can actually decline once they stop RPing.

Version A is the refined implementation. Under this version of formula, each RP carries less weight for that cutoff, but a greater cumulative effect, especially for RPs submitted earlier in the group stage.

My preference is for Version A. However, a compromise would be to use Version B with an added cumulative aspect to prevent scores from ever going down.

[PotatoFarmers]

After some thoughts about the validity of a stateful/dependant* RP bonus system, I must say that I chose to RON.

Ever since the last time a stateful RP bonus system appeared in a WCQ I was participating in, and it resulted in one of the most top team-oriented SQIS WCQ in recent history, I have told myself on the need to be careful of such bids. This bid has similar concerns as well - I am quite surprised to see that 1 RP at the start of the tournament will cumulate in 10.74 RP bonus at the end of the tournament - which translates to slightly more than 13 bonus points between that and a consistent, always max RP bonus user. Meaning, assuming both 65th ranked Zeta Reka and an unranked user submits an equally-awesome roster, Zeta Reka just needs to all in their efforts at their first RP and the unranked user will never catch Zeta Reka in ranked. While being slightly heavy on ranks is necessary for a WCQ, given how much protection in provides to a higher-ranked team, I am not so sure anymore.

Its difficult to give more textual examples, but I trialled some examples here and made comparisons to the WCQ92 system. I believe there are some similarities there which is a point of concern.

*Basically a stateful RP bonus system just means historical RP bonuses are taken into account for tabulating a matchday's RP bonus, while a stateless RP bonus system means a matchday's RP bonus system is independent of previous RP bonus. A computing terminology, but I felt it was better than saying "dependant" RP bonus system. But you may understand the latter better.

[Strike]

Ever since the last time a stateful RP bonus system appeared in a WCQ I was participating in, and it resulted in one of the most top team-oriented SQIS WCQ in recent history, I have told myself on the need to be careful of such bids.

While I don't think the RP system being proposed here is that similar to the one used in WC92, I would caution this generalization shown here. It seems to be implying that top seed nations doing well in qualifying isn't normal and tries to correlate the fact that top seeds did well solely to the - type of RP bonus system being applied? Even though at its core, top seeds have a higher ranking and have a higher probability of doing well.

But more critically, it ignores the single most pertinent piece of data - which is how well those top seeds RP'd. Irrespective of the RP bonus system used, if a top seed does not RP it will have a lower chance of finishing in 1st place than if it does. But Top seeds become Top seeds because they RP the most, and the best, on average, over time. Exceptions possible, but generally the case.

Some statistics from World Cup 92:

Pot 1 Teams missed, on average, 2 Matchdays worth of RP. If you exclude the extremes this drops to 1.5 MD's worth of RP missed, on average, by Pot 1 Teams

If you go down the list, of Average # of MD's of RP missed by teams in the pot you get the following:

Pot 2: 2.75
Pot 3: 4.25
Pot 4: 5.0
Pot 5: 6.0
Pot 6: 7.75
Pot 7: 10.0
Pot 8: 7.75
Pot 9: 8.5
Pot 10: 9.25
Pot 11: 8.75

(Rounded to .25)

So, on average, Pot 2-11 missed more Raw RP opportunities than Pot 1. Additionally, Pot 1 & 2 had the highest raw average RP score earned. Yes, there were a scattered nations that earned at a similar or higher rate, but its not as if there were any teams in Pot 1 that didn't RP at all to satisfy the traditional "An X ranked nation earning the max each MD could have a rank equivalent to a Non-RPing Top seed" - it didn't happen. As far as raw RP bonus earned, Every team in Pot 1 and Pot 2 during World Cup 92 RPd more than twice during WC 92

So I think its a bit of a fallacy to immediately jump to the conclusion "Top teams did well because X type of RP bonus system was used" when there are so many other factors, beyond Rand() that go into the results driving a single group.

As a specific example, i referenced the "extreme" above - the Pot 1 nation that RP'd the least in World Cup 92 - with a raw contribution on just 3 out of 11 possible cutoffs. However, as "luck" would have it for that nation, they were in one of the lowest RP groups in the tournament overall. Over half the teams in their group did not RP at all and had a raw score of 0. Only 1 of the 11 teams in that group managed to RP at least every other MD - which in that grading system would have allowed for the best 'free ride' of bonus.

So again, this is a clear example where you might try to say "Ok, sure most of the top teams RP'd at a high level... but this one didn't - so they shouldn't have finished in 1st" - except that the one who RP'd the least was also drawn into the least active group in the whole tournament - so again, the RP bonus system employed was clearly not the driving factor as to how they managed to finish 1st in their group. They may have been the least RP'd top seed, but they were one of the Top RPing teams in their group, and as such, seeing the highest ranked team in a low RPing group win that group shouldn't really be considered a "RON-worthy" basis of objection, in my opinion.

Top teams did well because had the highest rank, and a high RP bonus, on average. What the 'so-called stateful RP system does do, however, is it allows greater separation in ranking between the teams down in Pot 4-11 who might RP a handful of times but not every MD, and those who post a roster but don't RP at all - providing a bigger emphasis on "Contributing something" vs. "Contributing nothing. When you use straight cumulative RP bonus, there isn't as big a difference between something small and nothing.

Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a mathematical evaluation on "stateful v. non-stateful" RP bonus, just a vignette to point out that the RP system alone does not output scores, and that it seems misleading to post such comparisons without considering the multiple other factors contributing to such results.

[Xanneria]

Do you guys have an ETA on when the WCQs would start?