User:ShiggyGiddy/Babby Qualification

Work in progress!

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. Unless a manager stops doing the minimal work required to play, a board that is already in the cup can hardly die. On the other hand, new boards or boards that fell from grace have to jump through hoops and still have to consider themselves lucky if they are allowed in.

In the past, we any attempts to fix this lead to playing even more matches, either by increasing the Babby size or hosting a qualifier. An often proposed solution to this problem is what is usually referred to as #XXteams, a drastic cut in the teams allowed to participate. In this proposal, I want to outline why these approaches are not feasible in the long run and propose a tiered system that awards Babby spots by different means.

Current solutions

What is wrong now

To sum up, this is what I feel is wrong with our current system and/or approach:

• There are more teams than we have Babby spots.
• Regardless, the Mega Babby might be too big.
• More games means a higher demand for streamers. We might not always have the numbers we do now.
• Once a team is in the Babby/Elite cup circle, they hardly ever leave again, even if they are bad/ugly/unpopular.
• New teams are treated badly. Any effort they may make beyond showing up after 6 months with an export is hardly rewarded.
• The only ways we have to decide whether a team is eligible for a Babby are more matches or a Commissioner/4CCC decision.

As of now, we hardly show returning teams the door, even if their performance, aesthethics, and popularity all seem to be terrible. At the same time, we make it insanely hard for new teams to get a foot in, making sure they lose most of the motivation they might have to build up a team by the time they are eligble.

In other words, we hardly reward any effort made that goes beyond making a basic export.

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:

• The selection process is badly defined.
• If done by a council, it is highly arbitrary.
• If done by polls, it is easily rigged.
• The poll approach heavily relies on the 'true fan' concept, which implies that the majority of viewers watch the cup for mostly one team (see below).
• Once teams are in, they are in, and vice versa. Again, we will have teams outside of the cup that are more deserving than teams in the cup after a while.
• It does not ensure that the teams selected make an effort afterwards.
• In other words, it is no long term solution and requires a constant reevaluation that faces the same problems as the initial selection process.

As for the 'true fan concept', it is highly questionable in the first place, as a fair share (if not the majority) of the viewers watch the cup for what it is, bandwaggoning any team whose striker and goalhorn they like. Furthermore, even if every single viewer was a 'true fan', the numbers of the less popular boards would be so close together that any difference in votes/attendance for a particular team would most likely be within the margin of error. Given that regulars of slow boards hardly visit their boards every day but moderation is still on their toes, they might never see the poll they should fill out. Instead, people determined to rig such polls would have it very easy. In the end, we would have a handful of boards with similar numbers and no real grounds to make a fair cut. To top it off, they would probably be the same boards we suspected of being difficult to agree on in the first place, leaving us with hardly any new insight.

What to go for

In contrast to the issues pointed out above, a new system should meet the following criteria:

• Punish low effort.
• Award additional effort.
• Have teams qualify based on a combination of skill, aesthethics, and popularity/demand (not just by performance).
• Remove arbitrariness as much as possible.
• Be a continuous process and thus, suitable for long term.
• Scale well with more/fewer teams.
• Possibly reduce the number of games.

The tiered system

The first major change is that 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 One process taking place after the other. A setup could look like this for both Babby formats.

Mega Babby (40 teams)

1. 30 spots by 4CC Babby Council vote.
2. 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals or the Fetus.
3. 2 spots awarded by popular vote.

Normal Babby (32 teams)

1. 24 spots by 4CC Babby Council vote.
2. 8 spots awarded by performance in invitationals or the Fetus.

The 4CC Babby Council

The 4CC Babby council oversees which teams are awarded the initial Babby spots. It 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 are managers, testers, commentators or otherwise active people that are not playing in the Babby in question. For each cup, all eligible people may sign up for a seat. The seats are then awarded at random at a one cup basis.

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 particapted 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.

To be eligible for the selection phase

If a team fails to meet any of the following objective requirements, they are not eligible for the Babby Cup Selection.

• A basic team page on the wiki the team box template filled out.
• A roster of 23 players that complies with the current rule set.
• A logo on the team page that includes the team name (e.g. '/a/') with a resolution of at least 1500 x 1500 px and a transparent background (PNG with alpha channel).
• Two outfield kits that do not clash with each other and one goalkeeper kit.
• 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 tactical export that reflects the choices above and is in accordance to the current rule set. The export does not require 'proper' tactics or formations set up.
• A basic aesthetics export including all kits and the team colors. (TODO: more?)

A team not meeting these requirements (yet) might still be eligible for other forms of qualification.

The list

NOT DONE YET

If a team does not pass All questions are to be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' and in context to the other teams.

• Does the team have a (verified) manager?
• Does the team have a wiki page providing the most basic information (roster, goalhorns, ...)?

• Do you think that the roster properly reflects the board and is not just lazily drafted up?
• Aesthethics
• overall good impression
• Do you think that the average viewer will enjoy seeing this team play?
• Do you think that the manager cares and it is willing to go beyond the minimum requirements, even if only by a little?

Soon.

Remarks

There are some aspects that are not part of this proposal, but should be mentioned as they are closely connected.

• Streamers
• New teams in invitationals
• Verification
• ....

Not done.

Appendix

Babby criteria

A new team has to meet the following criteria to be eligible for a Babby:

• A verified manager.
• A logo.
• Three kits (one of them a GK kit).
• A roster that seems board-related.
• The corresponding board must exist for ~6 months.
• The commissioner wills it.

A returning team has to meet the following criteria to be eligble for a Babby:

• A verified manager (unless they are chosen to be an auto-pilot team).

In both cases, this does not take 'have an export ready by the deadline' into account.