Proposal On Continental Teams

[Tuthur]

I have no idea how to reply to this comment but since we are bringing that whole conversation here, this also deserves to be heard: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/the-identity-of-wcop.3727503/post-9771560

No this is completely irrelevant. The problem as stated by other posts is some regions giving elligibility to play for multiple teams, often at the cost of national teams. US teams are the actual opposite of making a super team.

I am sure that if in the next world cup a large nation with a wide range of players like France put together a second roster to participate in the world cup, they did not let it play.

I don't think France wants to field a second team, but even if it did, it's still not relevant to the topic of continental teams. Having some heavy populated country split is the opposite of creating super teams.

Super teams aren't bad because they are too good, they are bad because they go against the spirit of the tournament. Their purpose it to allow players with no team to compete, not to prevent the developpment of smaller nations. US players are still playing for their region, even if it is not a country, this can't be said about a lot of players in continental teams, especially ones who have an established team like Belgium.

 

[chimp]

Is there room for removing countries entirely and splitting continental teams by region in the way the U.S. does? I.E: Southeast Asia, Northern Europe, Latin America, Central America, Pacific Islands, etc etc etc etc etc

 

[Renegade]

opposite of making a super team.

Ehh
So if the conversation focuses on "being against the super teams" why does it focus on the continental ones? If we were a super team as they say we wouldn't be in qualys to begin with haha

In this case the only thing that should be talked about in this tread is Belgium getting its players, since they have remained in the main stage for two years in a row. If Mexico reaches the main stage next year, I would not be opposed to Bleach / Gondra / Edgar and any other Mexican who has played in LA, going to play in their countrys.

There is a very big difference with continental teams and US Teams. One (US teams) is designed to divide a region to help competition. The other (continental teams) is designed to help players who do not have a country to still be able to play. If people have issues with the way US Teams are divided, I think that’s fair, but I don’t think it has much to do with continental teams and should be a separate discussion.

Ah yes, ofc it makes sense to touch on that topic here since everyone wants to send continental players to their countries, just because it is the essence of the tournament and therefore coherent. That there are so many teams from the same nation in the tournament is not coherent at all.

And dont get me wrong, I agree with your ideas, and the truth is that it wouldn't bother me at all to play for my country, but dont look for consistency if you arent willing to be consisten.

 

[Drifting]

Is there any reason why the rule can’t just be “if your team is in main event they’re established and you have to play for them”? It seems like the obvious way to let proven teams like Belgium have their players while not fucking over someone like Storm Zone if some random 1100 ladder players try to form Team Trinidad & Tobago.

 

[ziloXX]

Is there any reason why the rule can’t just be “if your team is in main event they’re established and you have to play for them”? It seems like the obvious way to let proven teams like Belgium have their players while not fucking over someone like Storm Zone if some random 1100 ladder players try to form Team Trinidad & Tobago.

It is a reasonable solution, but it has a flaw imo, which is what would happen if a continental team like, for example, LA is about to play the main event with 80% of the roster filled with Mexicans and Venezuelans, and then on the last day of qualifiers, Mexico and Venezuela qualify for the main event. LA was left w/o a team and could simply drop the tour, or they would waste all the preparation they did and put 10 random players they find in one night to play. It is a shitty scenario for the prestige of the tournament imo

If u are going to change something, at least should be defined where each user can play before the tour starts

 

[Lhions]

It is a reasonable solution, but it has a flaw imo, which is what would happen if a continental team like, for example, LA is about to play the main event with 80% of the roster filled with Mexicans and Venezuelans, and then on the last day of qualifiers, Mexico and Venezuela qualify for the main event. LA was left w/o a team and could simply drop the tour, or they would waste all the preparation they did and put 10 random players they find in one night to play. It is a shitty scenario for the prestige of the tournament imo

If u are going to change something, at least should be defined where each user can play before the tour starts

To be fair, I think what he is trying to say is that if one team is able to make it to the main event and keep their place when the tour is over (not finishing in relegation spots), then next year, players from that nation can't play for the continental team because the nation is established. At least, this makes more sense.

P.S.: Over the years, I have read many comments comparing this to real sports. In real sports, when a new nation appears, the way this is handled is that players who have already represented the old nation (Europe or LATAM in these cases) can choose whom they want to represent: the old big team or the new small one. Once they choose and play for that team, they are locked in. So if you guys want to keep comparing this to real sports, don’t complain about Europe.

 

[Tio Chico]

And looking at the opposite direction of the situation, USA, divided itself into 4 teams to "not make such a strong team", when what happens in practice is more places for its North American players to participate and fewer countries qualified for the plays- offs. Of its 4 teams, 3 were in the top 8 and the one that was left out fell in the tie-break.
As a simple spectator I don't care who I'm watching, but teams like India, Chile or my countrymen from Brazil would have a better chance of progressing in the tournament if USA were a single team.
Both sides of the coin need to be seen, and the identity of what the World Cup is needs to be carefully revisited if it is to maintain a tournament along these lines.
I repeat, from the perspective of a simple spectator it doesn't make a big difference to watch teams organized by nationality or by audition/group of friends.
And it seems that patriotism is not the priority of some users and I also don't see a problem with that within the "Smogon environment".
"On continental teams" or "Case Europa" should be replaced by something like "the Identity of the World Cup".

 

[ziloXX]

To be fair, I think what he is trying to say is that if one team is able to make it to the main event and keep their place when the tour is over (not finishing in relegation spots), then next year, players from that nation can't play for the continental team because the nation is established. At least, this makes more sense.

Anyway, I don't see this as the solution to the problem. The argument is that some national teams could qualify for the main event or avoid relegation if only the players from their country playing with their continent would play with them. It's not about simply improving a team that can already play in the main event consistently.

In any case, my opinion on this is that players who have been playing for a while and are already players of a continental team should not be forced to play for their country. For those players, the decision to leave the continental team to play for their country should be a personal choice.
However, I do think some rules need to be changed. I don't understand why we allow new players to choose whether to play for the continental team or their national team. If the national team has existed for even a year and is returning, whether in qualifiers or main event, they have the right for new players from that country to play there just because they exist, lol. That's their way of growing, surviving, and improving in the competition, and the current rules don't provide this security to national teams.

Just look at Chile, who had an incredible run this year. Raptor could have chosen to play with LA this year, and w/o him, Team Chile might not have even signed up to play the WCOP, and we would have missed seeing some truly competent players in the tournament.
Obviously, he chose to play with the national team, so no one complains, but there are other teams that do lose new players who could contribute a lot to their teams because they choose the continental team over the national team, and that sucks.

 

[BigFatMantis]

P.S.: Over the years, I have read many comments comparing this to real sports. In real sports, when a new nation appears, the way this is handled is that players who have already represented the old nation (Europe or LATAM in these cases) can choose whom they want to represent: the old big team or the new small one. Once they choose and play for that team, they are locked in. So if you guys want to keep comparing this to real sports, don’t complain about Europe.

However, I do think some rules need to be changed. I don't understand why we allow new players to choose whether to play for the continental team or their national team. If the national team has existed for even a year and is returning, whether in qualifiers or main event, they have the right for new players from that country to play there just because they exist, lol. That's their way of growing, surviving, and improving in the competition, and the current rules don't provide this security to national teams.

This is probably what the rule should be, and what it should have been for a while now. This conversation comes up every year and there’s never a solution. The bottom line is some people are obviously not going to feel great about leaving the team they’ve played with for several years, and so forcing them to play for their nation team instead is always going to have push back. However, by disallowing new players to join the continental teams if they already have a national team, you can still promote growth of those teams without stripping the continental teams of their existing roster. Doesn’t matter if they’re a qualified team or not. It will take a while for the teams to grow with competent players, but it’s a lot better than the current situation. If you keep this rule consistent, then in a few years you will have much more competitive national teams.

 

[Eoward]

My proposition for rules was:

- A player may join a continental team if the country/countries for which he/she is eligible do not have any existing/registered teams this very year.
- If a national team for which the player can play is registered, but he has been part of a continental team in last edition, he can continue for the coming edition with this continental team (For example, if "national team A" registers in 2023, a player eligible for it playing in "continental team B" in 2022 can still play for this continental team for 2023. This gives the player time to adapt and prevents him from leaving a continental team for an ephemeral one-year project).
- If said national team is re-registered the following year (even for qualifiers), the player must then join his national team. Once he does, he is locked to play for it according to current WCoP rules (Taking back the previous example, if "national team A" registers again in 2024, the player'll have to play for this national team).
- If all national teams a player is eligible for refuse him for any reason (too many players, not in the plans,...), the player doesn't become eligible for any continental team (This point aims at fixing the issue of "slots being taken by players eligible elsewhere" that some players with absolutely no national team could face with the implementation of the three other points).

Lhions just said : "P.S.: Over the years, I have read many comments comparing this to real sports. In real sports, when a new nation appears, the way this is handled is that players who have already represented the old nation (Europe or LATAM in these cases) can choose whom they want to represent"

Do you have examples bro? I'm interested. Btw i don't see Europe, Asia or another continental team in football wcup or in any sport wcup. Same for Olympic games. It's so obvious that this can create imbalances. It goes against the spirit of the tournament.

The existence of continental teams is a gift which allows players to play WCoP even if they have no country in the competition. Not a gift to friends to make their team together. Or don't call this WCoP.

Let's put an end once and for all to the privileges granted on an individual basis.

a fairy thanks for your last answer. Have you any Idea of what we can do to be listened and to see reactions? We talked enough about this, let's make changes.

 

[a fairy]

a fairy thanks for your last answer. Have you any Idea of what we can do to be listened and to see reactions? We talked enough about this, let's make changes.

As myself not as a formal timeframe statement

TDs will (probably) start talking internally once WCOP formally ends (like I had mentioned pre-WCOP, we planned to reopen this conversation after the conclusion of WCOP) and then we'll determine how we want to move forward and then (probably) put together a response for further discussion. Hedging my bets on a timeframe thing because this WCOP isn't even over and we're still focused on this one, and to my recollection when we closed the previous thread the general understanding I had was that we'd come back to this once WCOP ended.

Though I will suggest that "We talked enough about this," isn't a perspective I share personally, I'd love more folks putting thoughts together and sharing them. IMO the more the merrier with regards to more folks who post how they want the rules to look, or what they want WCOP to be, or things like that.

 

[Lhions]

Lhions just said : "P.S.: Over the years, I have read many comments comparing this to real sports. In real sports, when a new nation appears, the way this is handled is that players who have already represented the old nation (Europe or LATAM in these cases) can choose whom they want to represent"

Serbia and Montenegro, when they split up ,

 

[IPF]

I've thought a lot about this as someone who's been a core member of a continental team for the past 5 years. World Cup is an awesome tour, now even more than ever. We've got 20 teams, an expansive qualifying round, incredible parity with the winners, and as much opportunity as ever to break out onto the scene, which to me is the most important aspect as someone playing for a historically terrible team.

I think it makes more sense to put our focus on strengthening newer, weaker teams, as opposed to the common idea of "disband the European superteam", who have in fact not won this tournament once during this period of parity, and while this may be my personal opinion, do not boast this incredibly overpowered roster that people are trying to make it out to be. The focus should be on improving teams such as the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and whichever teams may pop up in the future. The same applies to Asian and South American countries, we've already seen the likes of India and China break free from Asia and establish themselves as solid teams in this tournament, Argentina and Bangladesh have shown up in recent times, and Chile put together an awesome run in this years edition. Of course there is the matter of population and playerbase, but the core idea remains the same, stronger country teams is better for the tour overall.

Yanking players away from their continental teams does not seem like a solution to me. Players on Europe have been together for several years, and while it does seem unfair that they've jilted their country teams to play for the continent, forcing them back doesn't really provide much of an incentive for them to play at all, players will simply not sign up and we end up with a worse tour. Keeping this in mind I think the way forward for WCoP eligibility should be as such:

1. Once a new team fields a lineup for qualifiers, from the next edition onwards they are recognised as an official team, and no new players are then allowed to sign up for their respective continental team. Current rules only recognise a team once they have qualified for the main event, and that heavily disadvantages the team as it allows continental teams to poach players year after year with zero drawbacks. I also think this avoids the issue of a player from a weaker country potentially being blindsided by a new team forming when they've had a break out year and have been recruited by a continental team. This future proofs the tournament, and while this approach may not yield immediate results, it'll balance out rosters over the course of a few years.

2. Players currently on continental teams are allowed to continue on their team with the current set of grandfathering rules, and retain the right to switch to their respective country permanently if they wish to do so. No one can force people to play, and if perhaps the countries they are eligible for begin to develop a strong community, they can then consider it as an option later on. The power should remain in the players hands as much as possible, and team bonds make for a much better tournament experience.

3. New teams may struggle to keep a roster together, with teams like Pakistan (2022) and Turkey (2023) not fielding a roster after. If a qualifier team fails to submit a roster, they lose all grandfathering rights, and players from that country are free to join their continental team. This is kinda obvious, but I'm just putting it into words.

I did think about possibly having a higher threshold to qualify for my first proposal after reading Driftings post but the line to decide it felt very arbitrary, so if you've got any ideas then do let me know. Best I could come up with is finishing in the top half of qualifying/ finishing qualifying with a record of at least .500. This may prevent the hypothetical scenario of a random country's Facebook group getting the boys together while having zero tournament experience. Alternatively you could have the TDs judge rosters on a case by case basis, and assess whether enough of the roster has been active in tours or on forums in the lead up to the tour.

People who know me know that I only got my start in the scene because of this tour, and its this tour that brought me back to mons after I had all but quit. I love watching new players in the spotlight, the storylines that develop throughout the tour, seeing teammates develop and become mainstays in the scene. This is the essence of World Cup to me, and I think the above ideas embrace that concept. Hopefully this didn't come across as aimless rambling, just wanted to put my opinion out there, and I hope the discussion this year doesn't die out before a resolution is made. This is my favourite tournament, not just as a player but as a spectator as well, and its been amazing to see the growth over the past few years.

 

[blank]

Apologies for bumping, but after giving it some thought, rereading the posts in this thread, and discussing it with several users, I think the best way forward is how IPF outlined.

However, I disagree with the specifics around grandfathering - I think players who have played 2 or more WCoPs in a row within the last 5 years should be eligible for grandfathering. Players from before the "current gen" era should be viewed as new signups, and players who have not shown consistent commitment to their team (2+ consecutive years) should not get the benefit of grandfathering. I think there is some fine tuning that could be had on the specific numbers, but I trust the TDs to handle that in a fair way should they adopt this proposal.

While I think there are many parallels between this situation and the US region split, I think there is one key difference - the US split was largely done to nerf overpowered teams, whereas adjusting continental team rules should be done to remove unfair disadvantages on smaller teams. As posters in this thread stated, it is unnecessary to totally obliterate three perfectly fine teams when this middle ground proposal lifts up the country teams moving forward and preserves the teams people have shown sincere commitment to.

Merry Christmas everyone.