No offence JSA but that is the most stupid suggestion I've ever heard.

You want people to vote for the division of the different tiers and yet the votes of the teams in the higher tier count for more ??
Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the voting process ?

You misunderstood what he wrote.

You can make 8 votes worth 2 points, and 8 votes worth 1 point.

I think its fair.

All Captains/teams plz repost your line-up in this thread http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=6331, so we can have more organized.

It doesn't seem like that's what he meant though dunga

And even if we go along with what you propose here you will have 32 players all giving 16 votes......seems like a lot of hassle to me

Aranka, I don't know how you misunderstood it that bad. I didn't word it well but dunga understood exactly what I meant. And it won't be that much hassle, it's worth it I think.

Hey Aranka, you forgot to remind everybody about your 14-3 victory over WM!

:O

What is the final setting of this? How many games? Any restrictions?

Team Germany 1 like last time?

A little necromancy to bring this thread back up?

When it comes to seeding, I think the most fair thing would be to seed based on the previous Nations Cup rather than by reputation/popularity. The effect of that would be the quarterfinalists in pool 1 and the losing round of 16 teams in pool 2:

Quarterfinalists / Pool 1:
Brazil
Norway
Netherlands&Flanders
Serbia
Germany
Israel
Italy
US East

Round of 16 losers / Pool 2:
Britain & Ireland 1
Britain & Ireland 2
Canada
France
Lithuania
Poland
US Central
US West

The teams are all there in the new Nations Cup, though the Poland 2 players who made round of 16 don't seem to make up Poland 2, so the logical thing is to seed Poland 1.

Basing seeding on results rather than vote is a value in itself (more fair, and most would argue more accurate), but also it'd save us from having to do a lot of work with compiling votes.

Question 1: Would this leave any obviously very strong (pool 1) teams out of seeding altogether?
Question 2: Is there any reason other than a "yes" on Question 1 to not do it this way?

Yeon, the last Nation's Cup was a year ago. I was on US Central 2 at the time cause I was not very good. For starters, US Central 1 will add me and Gui which would most definitely put us above a few teams currently in Pool 1. France has grona, Mian, Niko, Marc, 4 former #1's on the ladder and you're gonna keep them out of Pool 1? There are many other changes to the lineups that should be done as well I think, things change over the course of a year, players get better, much better, and some decline in skill.

I think part of the reason why you would want to do it this way is so your team can be in Pool 1, because I think Norway could possibly be voted into Pool 1 but I wouldn't say it is likely. Let's do it the most accurate way instead of hanging on to past results.

as usual, it seems the loudest teams get to be in the top group... sigh.

and 'the most accurate way', is as usual, going by jsa's opinion. sigh...

jsa i see your point, but the seeds should be based on last years results, thats the easiest way of doing it, and thats what happened in the clan league, to force relite to be in group C, i think it should be like that in nations cup

thats rather surprising, hawks. how come you went by jsa's method in the promo/relegation league then? ;)

Pulsey, the most accurate way is to have the captains of each team vote on it. Give them a set period, say 3 days to cast the votes, 2 points for a top 8 team, 1 point for a 9-16 team. That is the most accurate way.

Seahawks, there's a difference between 3-4 month's time and a full year. I felt like it was a mistake to do the clan league that way but since Relite said they were fine with being in League C, and I was getting tired of debates anyways by that time, I went with it.

I understand why it would be easier to go with old results but the seeds should be based on the present not the past. The Impaller dominated the game when he still played. If he came back, should he suddenly become known as the best player in the game just because he was at his time? The answer is no, he actually barely cracked the top 10 when he came back from retirement, I think he would do even worse now. You can't judge by what players were like a year ago, it should be what they are like now.

thats very true, jsa.

but how are you going to decide how good they are? I doubt you'v played every player thats participating? how are you going to analyse them? the number of times they'v lost to you? their stats? different types of styles work on different people, just because a player consistently loses to you doesnt mean he cant beat the people you consistently lose to.

And anyway, this is a team tournament. 2 good players does not necessarily make a good team, but 2 bad players does not necessarily make a bad team. How are you going to judge teams?

Point being, players analysis of other players are SUBJECTIVE, its merely an opinion however, the results of the previous competition are FACTS. they actually happened, and it certianly gives a better impression of the truth than an opinion.

Sorry for all the spelling mistakes and bad grammar.

so team captains vote eh? i will start working on my votes if that is what is decided upon

Opinions > Outdated facts

Present > Past

And if a Pool 1 team, say Norway, was Pool 2, they should be able to defeat the Pool 1 team anyway as long as it is not Brazil, since they finished second last time, and that is a fact, right?

We've both made our arguments, now it's up for dunga to decide. If he goes with the results from last season, thats fine, I just think it's better to get all the teams involved by taking votes and that is the most accurate way.

I understand both points, thought i think result of last nation cup are very old and almost all team changed at least half player.
the right question is, have sense seed looking past result, thought team change a lot?
-yes, ok go for seed with past result.
-no, let's captains vote.
I don't know what is better.

JSA: Norway wasn't seeded last tournament either. I don't think our reputation changed from then to now. We ended up with Pool 1 Baltic States in our group (with Heyheuhei) and we beat them 13-0. I don't think it was very fair to Baltic States as a pool 1 team to be in group with us, Poland and Netherlands&Flanders - Baltic States managed advancement after winning all the big games against Netherlands&Flanders, but could just as easily have been knocked out. (It then turned out Heyheuhei didn't play any of the Round of 16 games, so the point became moot then)

Back in previous Nations Cup it was the same argument: "Well if you're so good, you can beat the Pool 1 team you're drawn with, then!" - But that's missing the point. The whole point of seeding is to avoid doing what was done to Baltic States last Nations Cup.

You can't just say "subjective opinion is better and that's a fact", you need to make a basis for the argument. And as has already been pointed out, no captain know all the players and I imagine most captains know less than a third of the players. So voting will be blind, not informed. Thus I get a feeling that what you're trying to point at me as part of my motivation (wanting a better seed for my team) is your whole motivation for your argument.

Personally I'll admit I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up if it didn't affect us, but I would have had the same opinion whatever position Norway was in.

Oh and, one more thing:

JSA: "France has grona, Mian, Niko, Marc"

Case in point: No, they don't. They have grona and Marc, though :) So you're even voting based on players who aren't even in the team. How's that accurate?

Please also notice that they had grona and Niko when we beat them 9-4.

I'm not saying Norway is a better team than France. But I disagree with your implied statement that seeding Norway instead of France is ridiculous.