by Apox » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:08 am
by Liventia » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:37 am
Patistan wrote:Why Xkoronate ? Not that I am objecting it.
by Yttribia » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:02 am
by Saintland » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:05 am
by Absurdly Polite Gentlemen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:11 am
by The Sarian » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:51 am
Absurdly Polite Gentlemen wrote:Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff :p).
by Valanora » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:53 am
by Buyan » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:43 am
Apox wrote:Format
With this cup looking like it will reach 180-200 sign-ups, it is clear that this will be a big cup, numbers wise. We would prefer smaller groups and a shorter qualification format, though we'll adapt the precise format to the number of sign-ups; we welcome questions on hypothetical sign-up numbers and the impact on the format of qualification groups. Smaller groups and shorter qualification campaigns will, however, likely necessitate some form of playoff system; it’s here that the precise number of participants will have the most impact.
by Western Sunrise Islands » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:05 pm
by Free Republics » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:08 pm
Western Sunrise Islands wrote:I don't have any problem with this as long as you don't have any problem with me winning it.
by Nova Anglicana » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:49 pm
Valanora wrote:No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.
by Super-Llamaland » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:02 pm
Nova Anglicana wrote:Valanora wrote:No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.
Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.
Everything else looks good to me. Toodle pip and all that.
by Liventia » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:04 pm
Super-Llamaland wrote:I mean, why would you penalize a team for losing, in the case of the World Cup Finals, one game?
by Nephara » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:07 pm
Nova Anglicana wrote:Valanora wrote:No concerns really, it's a solid looking bid, though I am a bit curious as to your choice for having SQIS, again, as well as having head to head over goal difference in the tiebreakers.
Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.
by Nova Anglicana » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:22 pm
Nephara wrote:Nova Anglicana wrote:
Why wouldn't you want H2H over GD? If two teams have the same record, then one should look at how they did against each other. If you use GD, it penalizes teams for not running up the score when they can, especially teams with negative style modifiers. A win is a win, no matter how much you win by.
It does penalise teams for not winning 4-0 instead of 1-0. Why is this a bad thing in any way? A 4-0 win is generally speaking a fairly crushing one, 1-0 a narrow one.
by Nephara » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:26 pm
Nova Anglicana wrote:Nephara wrote:It does penalise teams for not winning 4-0 instead of 1-0. Why is this a bad thing in any way? A 4-0 win is generally speaking a fairly crushing one, 1-0 a narrow one.
Because a win is a win, and fluky **** can happen to make a 4-0 win a 4-0 win, or a team could win 1-0 with five shots off the crossbar. If you win, you get the three points and that's all that should matter, especially when the score is generated by a program. Additionally, it penalizes teams with negative style mods, who are less likely to win by many goals. You should want teams to have an equal chance of advancement regardless of style. The simplest argument I can make is that you shouldn't see a team you beat advance in front of or instead of you when you have the same number of points.
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:58 pm
Absurdly Polite Gentlemen wrote:Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff ).
by Equestrian States » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:28 pm
Nephara wrote:IIRC style modifiers don't actually change the difference in goals in the win? Just whether it's 2-0 or 4-2? I could be wrong on that point, but it's what I've heard.
by Zwangzug » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:16 pm
by Mizuyuki » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:06 am
by Absurdly Polite Gentlemen » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:53 am
Alasdair I Frosticus wrote:Apox and I haven't forgotten you - we're just consulting quickly via e-mail over the questions you raise so as to make sure we're on the same wavelength.
We both think consultation and communication between the hosts are key to a successful hosting experience, and don't want to answer unilaterally.
But on one point...Absurdly Polite Gentlemen wrote:Considering my nation name, this bid makes me very happy. Although I don't have a vote, good luck to you. (Although, surely chaps use excel, not this new fangled stuff ).
Excel?
EXCEL?
Back in my day, we used dice, old chap.
by Alasdair I Frosticus » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:55 am
Absurdly Polite Gentlemen wrote:Dice? Dice? A gentleman is inclined to preserve noble traditions, not barbaric ones like dice.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Brookstation, Saint Kanye
Advertisement