Discussion about WC2015 qualifier spots

[Pandevmonium]

To handle the leftovers, I will be using this rule: Any remaining spots from the 29 available will be given to the regionals in order of biggest first, so 12 would go through for Americas in this case.

I think you should order regionals by decimal part. In an hypotetic scenario where we have:
Region A - 10.03
Region B - 9.97
Region C - 8

Region A and B have pretty much the same number of participants, but the current system would award the first one with 11 spots and the second one with only 9. And I don't honestly know why.

[Gondorian]

I think you should order regionals by decimal part. In an hypotetic scenario where we have:
Region A - 10.03
Region B - 9.97
Region C - 8

Region A and B have pretty much the same number of participants, but the current system would award the first one with 11 spots and the second one with only 9. And I don't honestly know why.

I do see your point, but any kind of rounding method I choose would be arbitrary and open to controversy (e.g. why did you round to nearest instead of up?). And it could leave things open to manipulation by people who join a particular one late. The ruling I've given just makes it clear that whichever has the most is what matters for assigning the leftover spots.

[Pandevmonium]

You ruling is very clear and simple, but it's faulty. I am raising my concerns because it seems that players in EuroAfrica, Asia or both zones are going to be screwed; but I would have pointed out this bug anyway, because I don't know why Wulven have to mess things up when only 2 stupid arithmetical operations are involved.
You switched regionals behavior from "29 places are proportionally distributed between 3 regions" to "1 spot is assured to the regional with most players, then 28 places are proportionally distributed between 3 regions". Is it fair?

[Gondorian]

You ruling is very clear and simple, but it's faulty. I am raising my concerns because it seems that players in EuroAfrica, Asia or both zones are going to be screwed; but I would have pointed out this bug anyway, because I don't know why Wulven have to mess things up when only 2 stupid arithmetical operations are involved.
You switched regionals behavior from "29 places are proportionally distributed between 3 regions" to "1 spot is assured to the regional with most players, then 28 places are proportionally distributed between 3 regions". Is it fair?

Yes, it's fair. It will be proportional, as far as it can be. Fractions are always going to cause an issue in something like this, so let's hope for no fractions being required in the final calculation.

[Shadows R Us]

No matter what the ruling is, somebody will be upset with it. The important thing is to have it clearly stated, which is what Gondorian did.

[Pandevmonium]

You're faking the World Cup before it even starts this way. Just take a look at signups now... we have 34-31-24 players in the 3 regionals. With a proportional system we would have:
Americas -> 11 spots out of 34 entrants (32% chance of qualifying)
Europe -> 10 out of 31 (32%)
Asia -> 8 out of 24 (33%)

With the flawed system we would have:
Americas -> 12 spots out of 34 entrants (35%)
Europe -> 10 out of 31 (32%)
Asia -> 7 out of 24 (29%)

It starts to be a great discrepancy between zones, turning Americas into the soft tournament and making Asia the tougher one. I don't know why people in a regional should have less chances to qualify rather than another one. Are American players too strong? I doubt they're so stornger than Asian ones to justify that gap.

[Gondorian]

You're faking the World Cup before it even starts this way. Just take a look at signups now... we have 34-31-24 players in the 3 regionals. With a proportional system we would have:
Americas -> 11 spots out of 34 entrants (32% chance of qualifying)
Europe -> 10 out of 31 (32%)
Asia -> 8 out of 24 (33%)

With the flawed system we would have:
Americas -> 12 spots out of 34 entrants (35%)
Europe -> 10 out of 31 (32%)
Asia -> 7 out of 24 (29%)

It starts to be a great discrepancy between zones, turning Americas into the soft tournament and making Asia the tougher one. I don't know why people in a regional should have less chances to qualify rather than another one. Are American players too strong? I doubt they're so stornger than Asian ones to justify that gap.

It's all about the numbers. Nothing to do with skill level. If you wish to switch regionals or drop from the event, let me know.

[busti]

It seems pretty obvious to me too that Pandevmonium is right. The rule can also be 'simple' and fair, you distribute the last place so that the %difference between each region is the smallest.

I agree that it's all about the numbers, but I'm not sure how that's an argument for adding the last spot to the biggest region automatically.

[Pandevmonium]

So you are cheating with your players and you are fine with that? People spent 500 SC in Asia and Europe like they did in America, while your last posts seem to show that our crystals are less valuable, just because you're afraid of decimal numbers. Wow.

[Gondorian]

I've moved this to a separate thread because I do not want the main one derailed with this.

Feel free to expand more here on why you think it is unfair.