I haven't posted seriously in ages, so bear with me. I'm aiming to just give my thoughts on things from a purely organizational standpoint. I also have zero intention of playing in this tour, even with how limited in players Asia is, and don't even care enough to argue for my friends, so there shouldn't be any reason to think I'm just trying to help a team.
For 8 slots vs 10 slots (and whether GSC/RBY should be included) matter, at this point, the only issue should be whether there's enough of a player distribution to include GSC/RBY. Multiple people in this thread have made arguments for and against them, but I just want to emphasize that if anyone wants to put a list of players for each team/region that could potentially fill a slot and use that to support your stance, do some research first. I don't follow RBY enough, so I'll focus on GSC, but the logic should follow for both. Certain people only played GSC because they had to in the first place, and some of them literally will not care about UU WCoP regardless of the tiers. For example, I talked to devin, and he straight up said there's no way he'd play GSC UU (I did not expect him to post though). I also found out from him that the only reason he played GSC was because Zokuru disappeared in UUPL, who was pretty dead in the team to begin with. I don't know what are the odds of him signing up and caring about this tour given this. Just like that, France and Asia + RoW loses a potential GSC player despite them not having many options to begin with. For the record, I feel like any team that can't squeeze out at least 2 potential players is in a tough spot, and it's not like this is only the case in like one team. You also have to consider whether those players are needed to play other gens. I would prefer to avoid situations where teams have literally no way of adequately filling their whole lineup. All this seems to be leaning towards not including either GSC or RBY. Of course, I'm basing this on what's been presented so far, so if someone can properly show that they have the distribution needed, then I'd gladly sit back and watch all the games, since I actually quite enjoy watching GSC.
Regarding the other options of 4th SS UU and Bo3, I just think Bo3 is ass and a 4th SS UU is overdoing it, although that's the least objectionable option to me if one of them is absolutely required. 8 slots would definitely help with the overall player distribution, though, considering last year was already bad for some teams (not accounting for the changes to rosters this year that would naturally occur).
___
As for merging of West and Midwest, I really don't have an opinion on it in particular. If the Midwest people are that adamant and are confident they can put on quality games, then I'm not in the position to say they cannot. However, I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere regarding who gets their own team. I guess this really depends on whether we want this tour to have some sort of inherent quality standard. In a hypothetical scenario, if say Midwest (not targeting any of you. this can apply to any other team) keeps their own team this year and winds up doing absolutely horrible, even with an active chat, what happens next year if this tour remains? If they keep getting a lot of signups (that the captains are willing to let play), are they always going to get their own team? This obviously also applies to teams that have supposed "elite players". If we don't care about competitiveness much, then this is straightforward: more signups = higher chance the team exists.
If we do care about maintaining some form of competitiveness, it's a little trickier. All teams have bad years, and teams may start out horrible and gradually improve over time (which has happened many times in other world cups), so it's not like we can remove a team for performing badly once. And in this case, having maximum inclusivity is straight up impossible because having certain teams just for the sake of including more people that sign up will eventually compromise the quality of games. If someone cannot put up quality games against the rest of the pool, then there's really no going around that. People are going to be upset, but balancing inclusiveness and competitiveness isn't going to happen without some salt. There's also things like number of teams, number of playoff places, playoff byes that I frankly don't care about but it does come down to how you want this tour to be. From a competitive standpoint, though, the current 12 teams into 4 playoff spots isn't it.
Finally, there's the matter where people are dragging disinterested players within their region to sign up just so they have enough people for their own team. Honestly, I'd rather see a team of "bad" players that are genuinely interested and enthusiastic than a team filled with "elite" players that couldn't give less of a damn. This whole thing just feels like subjective nonsense right now, and the line of who gets teams is apparently just people caring enough to fight for their side.
I don't know if discussing what happens after the tour has a place here, but I just wanted it to be laid out for future consideration. Apologies for going off on my own little thought bubble. I appreciate anyone that actually read through this.
For 8 slots vs 10 slots (and whether GSC/RBY should be included) matter, at this point, the only issue should be whether there's enough of a player distribution to include GSC/RBY. Multiple people in this thread have made arguments for and against them, but I just want to emphasize that if anyone wants to put a list of players for each team/region that could potentially fill a slot and use that to support your stance, do some research first. I don't follow RBY enough, so I'll focus on GSC, but the logic should follow for both. Certain people only played GSC because they had to in the first place, and some of them literally will not care about UU WCoP regardless of the tiers. For example, I talked to devin, and he straight up said there's no way he'd play GSC UU (I did not expect him to post though). I also found out from him that the only reason he played GSC was because Zokuru disappeared in UUPL, who was pretty dead in the team to begin with. I don't know what are the odds of him signing up and caring about this tour given this. Just like that, France and Asia + RoW loses a potential GSC player despite them not having many options to begin with. For the record, I feel like any team that can't squeeze out at least 2 potential players is in a tough spot, and it's not like this is only the case in like one team. You also have to consider whether those players are needed to play other gens. I would prefer to avoid situations where teams have literally no way of adequately filling their whole lineup. All this seems to be leaning towards not including either GSC or RBY. Of course, I'm basing this on what's been presented so far, so if someone can properly show that they have the distribution needed, then I'd gladly sit back and watch all the games, since I actually quite enjoy watching GSC.
Regarding the other options of 4th SS UU and Bo3, I just think Bo3 is ass and a 4th SS UU is overdoing it, although that's the least objectionable option to me if one of them is absolutely required. 8 slots would definitely help with the overall player distribution, though, considering last year was already bad for some teams (not accounting for the changes to rosters this year that would naturally occur).
___
As for merging of West and Midwest, I really don't have an opinion on it in particular. If the Midwest people are that adamant and are confident they can put on quality games, then I'm not in the position to say they cannot. However, I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere regarding who gets their own team. I guess this really depends on whether we want this tour to have some sort of inherent quality standard. In a hypothetical scenario, if say Midwest (not targeting any of you. this can apply to any other team) keeps their own team this year and winds up doing absolutely horrible, even with an active chat, what happens next year if this tour remains? If they keep getting a lot of signups (that the captains are willing to let play), are they always going to get their own team? This obviously also applies to teams that have supposed "elite players". If we don't care about competitiveness much, then this is straightforward: more signups = higher chance the team exists.
If we do care about maintaining some form of competitiveness, it's a little trickier. All teams have bad years, and teams may start out horrible and gradually improve over time (which has happened many times in other world cups), so it's not like we can remove a team for performing badly once. And in this case, having maximum inclusivity is straight up impossible because having certain teams just for the sake of including more people that sign up will eventually compromise the quality of games. If someone cannot put up quality games against the rest of the pool, then there's really no going around that. People are going to be upset, but balancing inclusiveness and competitiveness isn't going to happen without some salt. There's also things like number of teams, number of playoff places, playoff byes that I frankly don't care about but it does come down to how you want this tour to be. From a competitive standpoint, though, the current 12 teams into 4 playoff spots isn't it.
Finally, there's the matter where people are dragging disinterested players within their region to sign up just so they have enough people for their own team. Honestly, I'd rather see a team of "bad" players that are genuinely interested and enthusiastic than a team filled with "elite" players that couldn't give less of a damn. This whole thing just feels like subjective nonsense right now, and the line of who gets teams is apparently just people caring enough to fight for their side.
I don't know if discussing what happens after the tour has a place here, but I just wanted it to be laid out for future consideration. Apologies for going off on my own little thought bubble. I appreciate anyone that actually read through this.
Last edited:
