Difference between revisions of "User:ShiggyGiddy/Babby Qualification"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ShiggyGiddy (talk | contribs) |
ShiggyGiddy (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The following proposal outlines a new way of awarding Babby Cup spots. | The following proposal outlines a new way of awarding Babby Cup spots. | ||
It aims to reduce the number of teams playing in a qualifier, even the odds between established and upcoming teams, and provide a longterm solution that favors teams that are fun to watch. | It aims to reduce the number of teams playing in a qualifier, even the odds between established and upcoming teams, and provide a longterm solution that favors teams that are fun to watch. | ||
In particular, teams are no longer awarded spots based on performance alone, but also other aspects like aesthetics, popularity, and overall presentation. | In particular, teams are no longer awarded spots based on performance alone, but also other aspects like aesthetics, popularity, and overall presentation. | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
== Motivation == | == Motivation == | ||
We have no good system in place that allows new teams into the cup while at the same time gets rid of the dead meat. | We have no good system in place that allows new teams into the cup while at the same time gets rid of the dead meat. | ||
Unless a manager stops doing the minimal work required to play, a board that is already in the cup can hardly die. | Unless a manager stops doing the minimal work required to play, a board that is already in the cup can hardly die. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=== What is wrong now === | === What is wrong now === | ||
To sum up, this is what I feel is wrong with our current system and/or approach: | To sum up, this is what I feel is wrong with our current system and/or approach: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 32: | ||
=== What is wrong with #XXteams === | === What is wrong with #XXteams === | ||
While the general idea of a hard cut seems easy and fixes most of the obvious problems, there still are some major issues with the idea: | While the general idea of a hard cut seems easy and fixes most of the obvious problems, there still are some major issues with the idea: | ||
| Line 53: | Line 51: | ||
== What to go for == | == What to go for == | ||
In contrast to the issues pointed out above, a new system should meet the following criteria: | In contrast to the issues pointed out above, a new system should meet the following criteria: | ||
| Line 63: | Line 60: | ||
* Scale well with more/fewer teams. | * Scale well with more/fewer teams. | ||
* Possibly reduce the number of games. | * Possibly reduce the number of games. | ||
--> | |||
== Babby Cup Qualification stages == | == Babby Cup Qualification stages == | ||
First of all, the first 16 spots are no longer awarded to the teams relegated from the previous Elite Cup. | First of all, the first 16 spots are no longer awarded to the teams relegated from the previous Elite Cup. | ||
Instead, Babby spots are awarded in multiple ways, with not all of them being based on performance. | Instead, Babby spots are awarded in multiple ways, with not all of them being based on performance. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 71: | ||
'''Normal Babby (32 teams)''' | '''Normal Babby (32 teams)''' | ||
# 24 spots by | # 8 spots to the (relegation stage) | ||
# 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals | # 24 spots by Babby Council vote (selection stage). | ||
# 8 spots awarded by performance in a qualifier or invitationals (performance stage). | |||
'''Mega Babby (40 teams)''' | '''Mega Babby (40 teams)''' | ||
# 30 spots by | # 30 spots by Babby Council vote (selection stage). | ||
# 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals | # 8 spots awarded by performance in a qualifier or invitationals (performance stage). | ||
# 2 spots awarded by popular vote (poll stage). | # 2 spots awarded by popular vote (poll stage). | ||
=== Selection stage === | === Selection stage === | ||
In the selection stage, spots are awarded by if and how well a team fulfills a list of requirements. | In the selection stage, spots are awarded by if and how well a team fulfills a list of requirements. | ||
Some of these are objective, others are partly or completely subjective. | Some of these are objective, others are partly or completely subjective. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 90: | ||
The teams are then ranked by points and the top teams are awarded the spots assigned to the selection stage. | The teams are then ranked by points and the top teams are awarded the spots assigned to the selection stage. | ||
In the case of a tie between low ranked teams, the Babby Council holds a vote. | In the case of a tie between low ranked teams, the Babby Council holds a vote. The results of the selection stage are to be made public. | ||
=== Performance stage === | === Performance stage === | ||
The performance stage is a qualifier in the established sense (e.g. a Fetus Cup or (Un)friendlies). | |||
The performance stage is a qualifier in the established sense (e.g. a Fetus Cup). | |||
The qualifier may either be held by the 4CCC themselves or by a third party that has been given official permission. | The qualifier may either be held by the 4CCC themselves or by a third party that has been given official permission. | ||
In the case of multiple qualifiers, the spots may be divided between those. | In the case of multiple qualifiers, the spots may be divided between those. | ||
=== Poll stage === | === Poll stage === | ||
As the numbers do not add up well for a Mega Babby, the remaining spots in this format are given away based on popular vote. | As the numbers do not add up well for a Mega Babby, the remaining spots in this format are given away based on popular vote. | ||
Which teams are eligible for this stage is decided by the [[4CCC]]. | Which teams are eligible for this stage is decided by the [[4CCC]]. | ||
| Line 112: | Line 104: | ||
To minimize any room for rigging, the poll may be held on short notice and only for a few hours. | To minimize any room for rigging, the poll may be held on short notice and only for a few hours. | ||
The poll must however be announced on the thread and the wiki frontpage. | The poll must however be announced on the thread and the wiki frontpage. | ||
== In detail == | == In detail == | ||
=== The 4CC Babby Council === | === The 4CC Babby Council === | ||
The Babby Council consists of anywhere between 6 to 12 people, with the [[4CCC]] roughly providing 33% to 50% of the seats (as individual people). | |||
The | The other members may be managers, testers, commentators or otherwise active 4CC people that are not directly involved with any of the teams in question. | ||
The other members may be managers, testers, commentators or otherwise active people that are not | |||
For each cup, all eligible people may sign up through the wiki for a seat. | For each cup, all eligible people may sign up through the wiki for a seat. | ||
The seats are then awarded at random. | The seats are then awarded at random. | ||
The council is formed anew for each Babby Cup. | The council is formed anew for each Babby Cup. | ||
=== Prerequisites for the selection stage === | === Prerequisites for the selection stage === | ||
If a team fails to meet any of the following prerequisites, they are not eligible for the selection stage: | If a team fails to meet any of the following prerequisites, they are not eligible for the selection stage: | ||
* The corresponding board is at least 5 months old. | * The corresponding board is at least 5 months old. | ||
* A basic team page on the wiki the team box template filled out. | * A basic team page on the wiki with the team box template filled out. | ||
* A logo on the team page that includes the team name (e.g. '/a/') with a resolution of at least | * A logo on the team page that includes the team name (e.g. '/a/') with a resolution of at least 1024 x 1024 px and a transparent background (PNG with alpha channel). | ||
* An anthem and at least one goalhorn that are all linked on the team page and are accessible/available. | * An anthem and at least one goalhorn that are all linked on the team page and are accessible/available. | ||
* A manager that is either verified or scheduled for verification. | * A manager that is either verified or scheduled for verification. | ||
* A roster of 23 players that complies with the current rule set. | * A roster of 23 players that complies with the current rule set. | ||
* Two outfield kits and one goalkeeper kit. | * Two outfield kits and one goalkeeper kit. | ||
* A tactical export that reflects the points above and is in accordance to the current rule set (such as non- | * A tactical export that reflects the points above and is in accordance to the current rule set (such as non-clashing kits). The export does not require 'proper' tactics or formations. | ||
* A basic aesthetics export including all kits and | * A basic aesthetics export including all kits, the team logo, and team colors. | ||
=== Subjective questions for the selection stage === | === Subjective questions for the selection stage === | ||
All questions are to be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' and in context to the other teams. | All questions are to be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' and in context to the other teams. | ||
Some questions are very similar to give certain aspects more weight. | Some questions are very similar to give certain aspects more weight. | ||
# | # Do the teams's wiki pages positively stand out? | ||
# Does the team have a roster page that gives some entertaining insight on the players? | # Does the team have a roster page that gives some entertaining insight on the players? | ||
# Do you think that the roster properly reflects the board and is not just lazily drafted up? | # Do you think that the roster properly reflects the board and is not just lazily drafted up? | ||
# Do you consider the overall presenation of the team in other aspects (logo, kits, anthem, goalhorns) to be good? | # Do you consider the overall presenation of the team in other aspects (logo, kits, anthem, goalhorns) to be good? | ||
# Does the team have a baseline of aesthetics (as in non-placeholder faces)? | # Does the team have a decent baseline of aesthetics (as in non-placeholder faces)? | ||
# Does the team have | # Does the team have aesthetics that you consider outstanding and/or unique? | ||
# Do you think that the | # Do you think that the management cares and is willing to go beyond the minimum requirements, even if only by a little? | ||
# Do you have the impression that the team has support from its board? | # Do you have the impression that the team has support from its board? | ||
# Do you believe that the team is not just forced by a very small | # Do you believe that the team is not just forced by a very small group of people? | ||
# Do you think that the average viewer will enjoy seeing this team play? | # Do you think that the average viewer will enjoy seeing this team play? | ||
=== Needed changes to pots === | === Needed changes to pots === | ||
The teams are placed into pots like they always were, regardless of in which stage they were awarded a Babby spot. | The teams are placed into pots like they always were, regardless of in which stage they were awarded a Babby spot. | ||
In the event that there is more than one pot to fill with teams that did not participate in a previous Elite/Babby Cup, the teams are ranked based on the amount of cups they have missed. | In the event that there is more than one pot to fill with teams that did not participate in a previous Elite/Babby Cup, the teams are ranked based on the amount of cups they have missed. | ||
The more cups they have missed, the lower they are ranked. | The more cups they have missed, the lower they are ranked. | ||
A team that never | A team that never participated in an official cup before is put into the lowest pot by default. | ||
Should teams be tied between two pots, the decision is made at random during the draw. | Should teams be tied between two pots, the decision is made at random during the draw. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:02, 13 March 2016
The following proposal outlines a new way of awarding Babby Cup spots. It aims to reduce the number of teams playing in a qualifier, even the odds between established and upcoming teams, and provide a longterm solution that favors teams that are fun to watch.
In particular, teams are no longer awarded spots based on performance alone, but also other aspects like aesthetics, popularity, and overall presentation.
Babby Cup Qualification stages
First of all, the first 16 spots are no longer awarded to the teams relegated from the previous Elite Cup. Instead, Babby spots are awarded in multiple ways, with not all of them being based on performance. To avoid overlap, the process goes through several stages which take place one after another. If a team fails to earn a place in one stage, it may have another chance in the following stage(s).
The stages currently look like this for both Babby Cup formats:
Normal Babby (32 teams)
- 8 spots to the (relegation stage)
- 24 spots by Babby Council vote (selection stage).
- 8 spots awarded by performance in a qualifier or invitationals (performance stage).
Mega Babby (40 teams)
- 30 spots by Babby Council vote (selection stage).
- 8 spots awarded by performance in a qualifier or invitationals (performance stage).
- 2 spots awarded by popular vote (poll stage).
Selection stage
In the selection stage, spots are awarded by if and how well a team fulfills a list of requirements. Some of these are objective, others are partly or completely subjective.
The selection stage is overseen by the Babby Council which is formed anew for each Babby Cup (see below). The council decides which teams are eligible for this stage based on a checklist consisting of objective prerequisites.
Second, each member rates each eligible team based on several subjective yes/no questions, with each 'Yes' answer counting as one point for the team. The teams are then ranked by points and the top teams are awarded the spots assigned to the selection stage.
In the case of a tie between low ranked teams, the Babby Council holds a vote. The results of the selection stage are to be made public.
Performance stage
The performance stage is a qualifier in the established sense (e.g. a Fetus Cup or (Un)friendlies). The qualifier may either be held by the 4CCC themselves or by a third party that has been given official permission.
In the case of multiple qualifiers, the spots may be divided between those.
Poll stage
As the numbers do not add up well for a Mega Babby, the remaining spots in this format are given away based on popular vote. Which teams are eligible for this stage is decided by the 4CCC.
To minimize any room for rigging, the poll may be held on short notice and only for a few hours. The poll must however be announced on the thread and the wiki frontpage.
In detail
The 4CC Babby Council
The Babby Council consists of anywhere between 6 to 12 people, with the 4CCC roughly providing 33% to 50% of the seats (as individual people). The other members may be managers, testers, commentators or otherwise active 4CC people that are not directly involved with any of the teams in question. For each cup, all eligible people may sign up through the wiki for a seat. The seats are then awarded at random. The council is formed anew for each Babby Cup.
Prerequisites for the selection stage
If a team fails to meet any of the following prerequisites, they are not eligible for the selection stage:
- The corresponding board is at least 5 months old.
- A basic team page on the wiki with the team box template filled out.
- A logo on the team page that includes the team name (e.g. '/a/') with a resolution of at least 1024 x 1024 px and a transparent background (PNG with alpha channel).
- An anthem and at least one goalhorn that are all linked on the team page and are accessible/available.
- A manager that is either verified or scheduled for verification.
- A roster of 23 players that complies with the current rule set.
- Two outfield kits and one goalkeeper kit.
- A tactical export that reflects the points above and is in accordance to the current rule set (such as non-clashing kits). The export does not require 'proper' tactics or formations.
- A basic aesthetics export including all kits, the team logo, and team colors.
Subjective questions for the selection stage
All questions are to be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' and in context to the other teams. Some questions are very similar to give certain aspects more weight.
- Do the teams's wiki pages positively stand out?
- Does the team have a roster page that gives some entertaining insight on the players?
- Do you think that the roster properly reflects the board and is not just lazily drafted up?
- Do you consider the overall presenation of the team in other aspects (logo, kits, anthem, goalhorns) to be good?
- Does the team have a decent baseline of aesthetics (as in non-placeholder faces)?
- Does the team have aesthetics that you consider outstanding and/or unique?
- Do you think that the management cares and is willing to go beyond the minimum requirements, even if only by a little?
- Do you have the impression that the team has support from its board?
- Do you believe that the team is not just forced by a very small group of people?
- Do you think that the average viewer will enjoy seeing this team play?
Needed changes to pots
The teams are placed into pots like they always were, regardless of in which stage they were awarded a Babby spot.
In the event that there is more than one pot to fill with teams that did not participate in a previous Elite/Babby Cup, the teams are ranked based on the amount of cups they have missed. The more cups they have missed, the lower they are ranked. A team that never participated in an official cup before is put into the lowest pot by default. Should teams be tied between two pots, the decision is made at random during the draw.