Proposal Improving Scheduling in WCoP Round 1

[Leni]

Hey there,

Very quick proposal regarding scheduling in future WCoP. This mainly affects Round 1, but is easily adapted to qualifiers stage if ever needed.

Current situation and Issue:

In the WCoP, scheduling issues have been a recurring problem pretty much since the beginning. Each group consists of four players, and each player is required to play three games over three weeks. The issue arises because one of these three games must be completed within the first two weeks, while the remaining two games can be played in the final week. However, there are still occasional cases where a player fails to play a game within the first two weeks. This should not be allowed, but it still happens under certain circumstances that are approved by TDs.

Proposed Fix:

To address this, the group draft will be modified slightly. The first player picked in each group will be required to play against the second pick within the first two weeks. Similarly, the third pick will play against the fourth pick during the same period. This adjustment ensures that everyone plays at least one game in the first two weeks, preventing players from gaining an unfair scouting advantage by waiting until the final week to play.

If a player plays a game against someone other than their designated opponent and thus meets the "play one game within the first two weeks" requirement, it will be their responsibility to manage and prepare for this situation. If they fail to schedule and complete the game with their original opponent during the first two weeks, they will be substituted out.

But what if...

First-picked player is playing against the third pick, and the second pick playing against the fourth within the first two weeks - does this allow players to freely schedule remaining games? This would also meet the requirements given in the first place! In the most simplest way, no.

Personally, I believe that the original fix—where the first pick plays the second, and the third pick plays the fourth—should be strictly enforced. We should minimize the possibility to manipulate the system and by being strict, we are going towards that direction.

The goal remains to ensure that every player competes within the first two weeks and that the integrity of the schedule is maintained.

 

[Eeveeto]

Fully agree with this, nothing more to add.

 

[Luigi]

In WCOP this year there were 12 players out of 200 that didn't get at least 1 game done in the first 2 weeks and got an exception for it.

• 2 had a scheduled time for monday, which i'm sure we all agree is fine.
• 2 were for "personal reasons", which would get them subbed under this policy, meaning you get 6 worse quality games on those slots than if you kept the starters, though presumably their subs would have gotten 1 game in the first 2 weeks, let's call it a sidegrade.
• 8 were because they couldn't find a time with any of the 3 opponents, which would be fixed by this since there would be an incentive for at least 1 opponent to try their best at scheduling for the first 2 weeks.

So this policy would fix 10 players from getting an exception. Now consider that if 5 of these matchups can't be scheduled in the first 2 weeks for whatever reason, we're already in a worst spot than in the last WCOP, since both players need to be subbed out. Now consider that all players have 1 option instead of 3 to schedule with as they did under the current system, and it's chosen entirely arbitrarily.

Imagine how stupid you feel if you're in this group, with this proposed rule:

SV OU #14

Soul king0 / Fogbound Lake / Drifting / zioziotrip

Soul king0 (China, GMT +8) vs Fogbound Lake (Germany, GMT +1)
Drifting (Oceania, GMT +11) vs zioziotrip (US Midwest, GMT -4)

This would result in a lot more subbing for a very minimal decrease in people failing to play in the first 2 weeks, not a worthwhile tradeoff at all.

 

[Eeveeto]

If 2 players, despite a high difference in GMT, can,t find half an hour to play in 14 days (2 weekends among them), they shouldn,t sign up to play a team tournament of this importance to begin with and the respective teams/countries/regions should use other players with better availabilities, thats what Subs are for. Its time we should stop favoring inactive people with the excuse "the quality games of these guys are better", there are many good players out there whose games to watch, in every team.

Imagine how stupid you feel if you're in this group, with this proposed rule:

SV OU #14

Soul king0 / Fogbound Lake / Drifting / zioziotrip

Soul king0 (China, GMT +8) vs Fogbound Lake (Germany, GMT +1)
Drifting (Oceania, GMT +11) vs zioziotrip (US Midwest, GMT -4)

This would result in a lot more subbing for a very minimal decrease in people failing to play in the first 2 weeks, not a worthwhile tradeoff at all.

With the proposed example, what is the chance that both pairs of people can,t find half an hour to play in 14 days, but suddenly can find that half an hour in the last 7 days? In my opinion, not high. If their timetable is busy and the incompatibility is high, its going to be high in all weeks.

I am actually fine with the rules staying as they are now, but only if they are actively enforced. If its 2 weeks, its 2 weeks, no exceptions. "But can there be an exception for us, because we specifically can,t play in 14 days, but do have a time during the day 15?" No, play in 2 weeks or double Sub.

 

[zioziotrip]

With the proposed example, what is the chance that both pairs of people can,t find half an hour to play in 14 days, but suddenly can find that half an hour in the last 7 days? In my opinion, not high. If their timetable is busy and the incompatibility is high, its going to be high in all weeks.

I could be mistaken but I’m pretty sure me+drifting+soul king all had to play fog first/second (i think drifting soul king played first?) and I’m not really sure what the issue with that is. I work night shifts so asian/aussie tzs are even harder than usual because I’m at work nights+asleep morning/noon so I had to set time way in advance so I could make time during morning where I wouldn’t be unconscious.

Forcing drifting first for me would’ve thrown my schedule out of wack way sooner than necessary and ultimately accomplished nothing as I managed to play all 3 games eventually. I don’t really see how this proposal solves life happening and it seems to make games getting done harder if anything.

Pretty against pivoting drastically from current system, I think encouraging but not forcing early gaming still makes the most logistical sense.

 

[Leni]

In WCOP this year there were 12 players out of 200 that didn't get at least 1 game done in the first 2 weeks and got an exception for it.

• 2 had a scheduled time for monday, which i'm sure we all agree is fine.
• 2 were for "personal reasons", which would get them subbed under this policy, meaning you get 6 worse quality games on those slots than if you kept the starters, though presumably their subs would have gotten 1 game in the first 2 weeks, let's call it a sidegrade.
• 8 were because they couldn't find a time with any of the 3 opponents, which would be fixed by this since there would be an incentive for at least 1 opponent to try their best at scheduling for the first 2 weeks.

So this policy would fix 10 players from getting an exception. Now consider that if 5 of these matchups can't be scheduled in the first 2 weeks for whatever reason, we're already in a worst spot than in the last WCOP, since both players need to be subbed out. Now consider that all players have 1 option instead of 3 to schedule with as they did under the current system, and it's chosen entirely arbitrarily.

Imagine how stupid you feel if you're in this group, with this proposed rule:

SV OU #14

Soul king0 / Fogbound Lake / Drifting / zioziotrip

Soul king0 (China, GMT +8) vs Fogbound Lake (Germany, GMT +1)
Drifting (Oceania, GMT +11) vs zioziotrip (US Midwest, GMT -4)

This would result in a lot more subbing for a very minimal decrease in people failing to play in the first 2 weeks, not a worthwhile tradeoff at all.

The problem with the current system is that it lets players delay scheduling and find loopholes, resulting in avoidable exceptions. With the new adjusted system, players will always have at least one named opponent who is also required to play within the first two weeks. This removes the guesswork and ensures no one can coast until the final week. The idea that this would lead to arbitrary matchups is misplaced—by enforcing early matchups, we minimize the chances of a player dragging their feet while others are ready to compete. It's a smart design that pushes players to act within a realistic window of time. The core of this issue is player responsibility. Two weeks is more than enough time for any dedicated player to schedule and complete their first match. Even with differing time zones, players who are genuinely committed will take the necessary steps to coordinate early. The rule isn’t about creating unnecessary burdens—it’s about setting clear expectations and holding players accountable for their commitment to the tournament. After all, this is only team tournament between the big ones (SCL, SPL, WCoP) with two week deadline instead of one to get one game completed. SCL had only 4 uncompleted games throughout regular season and players were playing against players with very differing timezones. It’s clear that tight deadlines don’t cause nearly as many issues as people might think.

The concern about substitutions resulting in "lower-quality games" misses the point. If players are not scheduling their games properly, they’re the ones preventing good games from happening in the first place. It's better to have a substitute who can follow the rules and get the match done in the first two weeks rather than allowing excuses like "life happened" to drag out and risk the entire group schedule falling apart. A substitution ensures a fairer, more consistent experience for all players, as opposed to letting non-committed players clog up the schedule and undermine the competition.

The real benefit here is the long-term consistency. By addressing the scheduling issue upfront, we avoid the cluster of problems that typically appear in the final week. Everyone knows what’s expected of them, and the timeline for meeting those expectations is clear. This is about creating a structure that works for everyone from the start. Of course TDs will have their last word in extreme cases and that is still more than fine.

To sum up, this policy isn’t about making things harder for players—it’s about making things fairer and more predictable. If players can’t meet a basic requirements to get one match done in the first two weeks, then they shouldn't be the starter. The few substitutions that might arise are a much smaller problem than the ongoing loophole abusing that come from letting players continue to delay and work around the rules. Just like in "regular" tournaments with tighter deadlines, this change ensures a smooth, timely, and fair competition for everyone. If you're too busy to get your games done, then you make room for someone who has the time, very simple.

 

[Conflict]

Fully agree with this, nothing more to add.

100% true. This rule has no real downside and eases scheduling by making it more clear who plays whom (when).


And we all know its always the same 5 people asking for and getting extensions so lets level the playing field. And well Subs are there for a reason - if a player can't make it there are more then enough subs to fill his place.

 

[ABR]

Either

1) Change nothing

2) Assign a specific opponent for all 3 weeks, not just 1

Embrace the chaos of a final weekend flurry containing >50% of games, or make an actually impactful rule - the half measures won't really accomplish anything meaningful. This was discussed when deciding WCoP tiers though and it seemed most people preferred option 1 so it should probably be kept as is.

 

[Finchinator]

I tend to agree with Luigi that most changes end up with the trade-off in timeliness being done at the cost of player/pool quality. I also agree with ABR's implication that there is some enjoyment in the last (two) weekends of the first round being flooded and we can embrace it for what it is.

I have always viewed it similar to high volume weekends of certain sports I follow -- wall-to-wall games to follow for a day or two. It is one of the most enjoying things all year as a spectator and taking it away feels undesirable to me personally. Sure, it's flawed to an extent, but the whole WCoP tournament is to a degree and there is no perfect solution. The OP runs into the trade-off outlined in Luigi's post and a general loss of feel, going to weeks is a bit better in this front but feels like WCoP loses some identity as other tournaments all are weekly, and I do not see many other feasible proposals. If this is the most popular line of action, then I do not mind shifting, but for me the status quo works out well and makes WCoP stand-out while being a flurry of enjoyment.