hello. here's a bunch of musings / observations about WCoP that I think are important to share and discuss.
WCoP's identity was never too well defined, conceptually speaking. it started as just "a World Cup", went through a bunch of iterations before settling on a format on its fourth year (2009) and largely keeping it stable from there all the way through to today.
However, the landscape of WCoP has evolved quite a bit in that time, to a point where I think it's important to have a discussion about what WCoP should be, and have principles that we can use for future rulings. and in this sense, there are two opposing viewpoints I've mainly come across in the community. WCoP's current format and rulings are stuck between the two, and I think it would save everyone very many headaches if we agreed on one of the two in an official manner.
I acknowledge people aren't binary and you, the individual reader going through this post, will probably find yourself somewhere inbetween the two viewpoints. That's by design - the viewpoints I describe here are abstract, high concept, ideal.
Viewpoint A: The 16-team Tournament
This is the 'old school' view. The core principle here is that, in the interest of competitiveness, it would be best to have 16 teams as close in strength as possible playing in Main Event. It makes things more exciting, balanced, and trophies more accessible, if everyone is eligible to a team that's at least somewhat competitive, and the main event only features teams with potential to win it all.
In this view, philosophically, we should adapt the following systems. Some of them are still seen as extremely sensible, some less so, but they all, conceptually, serve this view:
1. We split the US teams in 4 for balance
2. We create the main Continental Teams (Latin America, Europe, Asia)
2.b We allow New Zealand + Australia for Oceania, and Africa + Middle East for Afrabs, since those teams are (or at least can be / used to be) significantly more competitive if they are made these allowances. Other regional groupings such as Benelux etc. are also seen as acceptable and even beneficial to the competition.
3. We fill the remaining slots with the strongest countries that can stand alone.
4. Eligibility rules are looser, to allow most if not all top players a chance at starting on a main event quality team.
The result of viewpoint A is a tournament where there's 16 teams at most. Great players from smaller countries simply flood to the continental teams; great players who have beef with their national teams are allowed alternatives through the continental teams; if not for the ridiculous strength of WCoP's best ever dynasties (Oceania 2009-2011 into US East 2013-2017), this format resulted in (theoretically) the most competitive format, with the distance between top and bottom teams not really being much at all.
Sometimes a new team pops up, and they are either Simply Allowed To Join (Afrabs's creation in 2013 simply resulted in a 17-team tournament), or, in more modern editions, made to play through a qualifier against the previous year's bottom finisher(s), but following the principles that this viewpoint proposes, they are made not to interfere with the Main Event teams (this shone through in rulings as recently as 2022, with xavgb/1TL on team Europe).
A small note is that the 16-team tournament favors potential for different formats; the 16 strongest teams on the website can all reasonably cover pretty much any tier you chuck at them. 16-team tournament allows for oldgens, lowtiers, or anything else you want really.
Viewpoint B: FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!
FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!, a slogan introduced by Jackal all the way back in 2009 that has been revived in 2020 after other hosts had dropped it, is very emblematic of a more modern attitude. You should, well, fight for your country. Simple as that.
Each team should represent one country. Historical exceptions are at best undesired but necessary allowances, and at worst ought to be erased entirely.
The policy consequences are as follows:
1. The US split in 4 is mostly still accepted as a necessary evil, due to playerbase size disparities, but there are even calls to unify to a single US team within this camp.
2. Continental teams are a necessary evil to ensure everyone can play in the tournament no matter where they're from - but, again, there are calls to take measures against them, from protecting established national teams from them (already codified in current rules), to protecting all national teams from them, to completely removing all grandfathering and forcing players off their continental and to their national team as soon as it exists, to enforcing a "maximum player from the same country" cap, to axing them all in favor of a single "Rest of the World" team, and a few other proposed solutions - you get the idea
3. Main event at 16 is not necessarily seen as problematic by all proposers of this viewpoint, but it likely ought to be expanded or reworked - 16 teams has no strong reason to be there other than tradition, and there's probably 20+ competent national teams currently (Argentina, Chile, China have been on the edge of promotion many years, and this year saw three teams with storied WCoP traditions in Asia, Brazil, and Greece, fall outside of top 16).
4. Eligibility rules are strict - you play for the country you're eligible for. If they won't take you, or if you don't want to take them, tough shit, sit out the tournament until you make up.
The result of this tournament is something that feels more like an authentic "World Cup". It allows for stories like this year's Bangladesh and Belgium to happen. But it arguably cuts away at players from smaller / underrepresented countries, and pretty much denies them any realistic chances at a trophy. It also (currently) doesn't have a clean solution to the Continental Teams issue in general.
It ought to be noted that viewpoint B severely restricts the potential for formats other than full CG. Asking smaller national teams to field players in obscure oldgens/lowtiers is pretty much a non-starter.
---
WCoP's current iteration and ruleset is stuck between two diametrically opposed viewpoints, that are pulling it in different directions.
On issue 1 (the US teams), it seems both viewpoints agree the split is acceptable, at least for now.
On issue 2 (Continental Teams), we currently have a hybrid of the two solutions that ends up being very confusing.
From viewpoint A, we take (1) the existence of continental teams at all, (2) the fact that they hold first rights over players from "non-established" nations, (3) the fact that players who have been on Continental teams for a long time are allowed to stay there pretty much no matter what, (4) Oceania being allowed to continue as Oceania rather than splitting Australia/New Zealand.
From viewpoint B, we take (1) disallowing regional groupings like Benelux or Afrabs to form, (2) poaching protection for all teams big enough to qualify as "established", and not much else - but community feeling has been very much pulling for Viewpoint B to make further progress here, from what I've observed and discussed over the last months
On issue 3 (Main Event size), we currently stick with the traditional 16 team Main Event (viewpoint A), but given that Belgium outplaced US Northeast in the year of our lord 2023, the argument that Qualifier teams are so much worse than the top 16 is kind of tough to make. There are non-insignificant calls to expand and/or rework the entire format to be something more fitting of a "normal" World Cup, or generally something that services a number of teams that's a lot closer to 32 than it is to 16 nowadays (30 teams this year - viewpoint B).
On issue 4 (Eligibility), we are pretty much full-on viewpoint B. Extremely strict, we don't care about any of your nonsense, play for your country or don't play at all. IP records are checked, everything's largely black and white.
WCoP needs to decide what it should be. It has been gradually transitioning from viewpoint A towards viewpoint B, and it is currently in an ugly, hybrid state that truly satisfies neither camp.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to qualifier teams who have to fight for 3 slots from 17 participants.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to continental teams (and hosts) who have to wrangle with eligibility rules that change year-to-year.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to anyone concerned with the tiers played - "small teams" don't know if they'll be able to even live next year, and "big teams" don't know if they should focus their resources on CGOU or if they should worry about oldgens again.
It impedes discussion around Continental Teams as nobody can agree on whether they should be protected or restricted, before even having the opportunity to delve into how to do either of these things.
These are not just philosophical differences. The ugly middle ground creates real, practical issues to a majority of people involved with the tournament.
We should strive to fully embrace ONE of these viewpoints as definitive, whichever one is more favored by the community, and strive to build WCoP2024 around it.
Thank you for reading
WCoP's identity was never too well defined, conceptually speaking. it started as just "a World Cup", went through a bunch of iterations before settling on a format on its fourth year (2009) and largely keeping it stable from there all the way through to today.
However, the landscape of WCoP has evolved quite a bit in that time, to a point where I think it's important to have a discussion about what WCoP should be, and have principles that we can use for future rulings. and in this sense, there are two opposing viewpoints I've mainly come across in the community. WCoP's current format and rulings are stuck between the two, and I think it would save everyone very many headaches if we agreed on one of the two in an official manner.
I acknowledge people aren't binary and you, the individual reader going through this post, will probably find yourself somewhere inbetween the two viewpoints. That's by design - the viewpoints I describe here are abstract, high concept, ideal.
Viewpoint A: The 16-team Tournament
This is the 'old school' view. The core principle here is that, in the interest of competitiveness, it would be best to have 16 teams as close in strength as possible playing in Main Event. It makes things more exciting, balanced, and trophies more accessible, if everyone is eligible to a team that's at least somewhat competitive, and the main event only features teams with potential to win it all.
In this view, philosophically, we should adapt the following systems. Some of them are still seen as extremely sensible, some less so, but they all, conceptually, serve this view:
1. We split the US teams in 4 for balance
2. We create the main Continental Teams (Latin America, Europe, Asia)
2.b We allow New Zealand + Australia for Oceania, and Africa + Middle East for Afrabs, since those teams are (or at least can be / used to be) significantly more competitive if they are made these allowances. Other regional groupings such as Benelux etc. are also seen as acceptable and even beneficial to the competition.
3. We fill the remaining slots with the strongest countries that can stand alone.
4. Eligibility rules are looser, to allow most if not all top players a chance at starting on a main event quality team.
The result of viewpoint A is a tournament where there's 16 teams at most. Great players from smaller countries simply flood to the continental teams; great players who have beef with their national teams are allowed alternatives through the continental teams; if not for the ridiculous strength of WCoP's best ever dynasties (Oceania 2009-2011 into US East 2013-2017), this format resulted in (theoretically) the most competitive format, with the distance between top and bottom teams not really being much at all.
Sometimes a new team pops up, and they are either Simply Allowed To Join (Afrabs's creation in 2013 simply resulted in a 17-team tournament), or, in more modern editions, made to play through a qualifier against the previous year's bottom finisher(s), but following the principles that this viewpoint proposes, they are made not to interfere with the Main Event teams (this shone through in rulings as recently as 2022, with xavgb/1TL on team Europe).
A small note is that the 16-team tournament favors potential for different formats; the 16 strongest teams on the website can all reasonably cover pretty much any tier you chuck at them. 16-team tournament allows for oldgens, lowtiers, or anything else you want really.
Viewpoint B: FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!
FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!, a slogan introduced by Jackal all the way back in 2009 that has been revived in 2020 after other hosts had dropped it, is very emblematic of a more modern attitude. You should, well, fight for your country. Simple as that.
Each team should represent one country. Historical exceptions are at best undesired but necessary allowances, and at worst ought to be erased entirely.
The policy consequences are as follows:
1. The US split in 4 is mostly still accepted as a necessary evil, due to playerbase size disparities, but there are even calls to unify to a single US team within this camp.
2. Continental teams are a necessary evil to ensure everyone can play in the tournament no matter where they're from - but, again, there are calls to take measures against them, from protecting established national teams from them (already codified in current rules), to protecting all national teams from them, to completely removing all grandfathering and forcing players off their continental and to their national team as soon as it exists, to enforcing a "maximum player from the same country" cap, to axing them all in favor of a single "Rest of the World" team, and a few other proposed solutions - you get the idea
3. Main event at 16 is not necessarily seen as problematic by all proposers of this viewpoint, but it likely ought to be expanded or reworked - 16 teams has no strong reason to be there other than tradition, and there's probably 20+ competent national teams currently (Argentina, Chile, China have been on the edge of promotion many years, and this year saw three teams with storied WCoP traditions in Asia, Brazil, and Greece, fall outside of top 16).
4. Eligibility rules are strict - you play for the country you're eligible for. If they won't take you, or if you don't want to take them, tough shit, sit out the tournament until you make up.
The result of this tournament is something that feels more like an authentic "World Cup". It allows for stories like this year's Bangladesh and Belgium to happen. But it arguably cuts away at players from smaller / underrepresented countries, and pretty much denies them any realistic chances at a trophy. It also (currently) doesn't have a clean solution to the Continental Teams issue in general.
It ought to be noted that viewpoint B severely restricts the potential for formats other than full CG. Asking smaller national teams to field players in obscure oldgens/lowtiers is pretty much a non-starter.
---
WCoP's current iteration and ruleset is stuck between two diametrically opposed viewpoints, that are pulling it in different directions.
On issue 1 (the US teams), it seems both viewpoints agree the split is acceptable, at least for now.
On issue 2 (Continental Teams), we currently have a hybrid of the two solutions that ends up being very confusing.
From viewpoint A, we take (1) the existence of continental teams at all, (2) the fact that they hold first rights over players from "non-established" nations, (3) the fact that players who have been on Continental teams for a long time are allowed to stay there pretty much no matter what, (4) Oceania being allowed to continue as Oceania rather than splitting Australia/New Zealand.
From viewpoint B, we take (1) disallowing regional groupings like Benelux or Afrabs to form, (2) poaching protection for all teams big enough to qualify as "established", and not much else - but community feeling has been very much pulling for Viewpoint B to make further progress here, from what I've observed and discussed over the last months
On issue 3 (Main Event size), we currently stick with the traditional 16 team Main Event (viewpoint A), but given that Belgium outplaced US Northeast in the year of our lord 2023, the argument that Qualifier teams are so much worse than the top 16 is kind of tough to make. There are non-insignificant calls to expand and/or rework the entire format to be something more fitting of a "normal" World Cup, or generally something that services a number of teams that's a lot closer to 32 than it is to 16 nowadays (30 teams this year - viewpoint B).
On issue 4 (Eligibility), we are pretty much full-on viewpoint B. Extremely strict, we don't care about any of your nonsense, play for your country or don't play at all. IP records are checked, everything's largely black and white.
WCoP needs to decide what it should be. It has been gradually transitioning from viewpoint A towards viewpoint B, and it is currently in an ugly, hybrid state that truly satisfies neither camp.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to qualifier teams who have to fight for 3 slots from 17 participants.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to continental teams (and hosts) who have to wrangle with eligibility rules that change year-to-year.
It provides an awkward, difficult experience to anyone concerned with the tiers played - "small teams" don't know if they'll be able to even live next year, and "big teams" don't know if they should focus their resources on CGOU or if they should worry about oldgens again.
It impedes discussion around Continental Teams as nobody can agree on whether they should be protected or restricted, before even having the opportunity to delve into how to do either of these things.
These are not just philosophical differences. The ugly middle ground creates real, practical issues to a majority of people involved with the tournament.
We should strive to fully embrace ONE of these viewpoints as definitive, whichever one is more favored by the community, and strive to build WCoP2024 around it.
Thank you for reading
Last edited:
