look past nation cup.
The nation with a top player with an undisputed leadership, who played all game, are in final.
Look Brazil, with Dunga that play all games.
look Norway, with Yeon taht play all games.
You want go on final of nation cup? best idea is put 1/2 top player and 3 decent player that listen you.
Reason:
if you are very good, you don't need to be helped of teammate. I HATE when i have to discuss with teammate for convince then to change their commit. Is a waste of time and you ended for play bad too, bc you focus to convince mate instead try best move. For this reason Italy lose soon on playoff. We were never of same opinion on the moves to make.
look line up of Usa east 1 2012. All very good player, but none of them were better than others. And they lose soon too.

i'm not sure what you are trying to prove but if you want you can do the same and play all games.

Could we please for the new Nations Cup avoid "vote to boot"/"direct boot" options? As in that the time limit for voting to boot/direct boot is the same as auto boot.

Simply for the same reason as ladder; you don't want to give those who are very eager with the boot button to have an advantage over those who are not.

I just cant fathom why the grammer nazis that dictate this forum dont pick up on Gnuffone's grammar, but instead decide to choose to bully people like Motocross and agressive, to name but a few :/

Gnuffone: ofcourse you don't need to be helped when you are a very good player, you should help the others instead.

Often happan on teamgames that teammate don't want listen you :/

leadership is a part of team play, making the team playing as a team is a skill.

What made me play all games so far its because thats the point of a nation selection, making the best teams for the games. I was inspired by the Davis Cup and Table Tennis team disputes.
I advice the teams to do the same, or at least try to have close to the best line-up possible. Its a serious competition imo, so, doing the best is the best option.

Also, we can put this to voting
will we limit each player to play 3 events maximum or he can play all 4?

oh cmon, don't became ridiculous.
Why we should put this limit? On past Nation Cup we never speak about this...
This is my opinion. Why we should don't allowe the best player to play all games?

Maybe to be this more like nation cup?

IMO a player can play in all catagories, but what you said about teammates who don't want to listen to you. Then there is no teamplay and, how bad this might be for you, your team doesn't deserve to win then.

look past Nation Cup. Win who have best player on team, not who have the a lot of decent/good player.

well, i think me and Yeon are flattered.

Just see my results you will see that i am far from being the best player in the previous tournament, what made my team won is we put a LOT of effort into it, talk a lot about games, sometimes for hours, with 4 or 5 players, that made the difference a lot more than myself.

I agree with the boot issue. Just set Auto at what you want it and match vote/direct to that also. This should not be decided by trigger happy people.

Why we should put this limit? On past Nation Cup we never speak about this...

Well, you kinda brought it up by referring to Dunga and Yeon. Besides just because the first edition didn't have that rule that doesn't mean the 2nd can't have it. In sports rules gets changed too to try to improve things. I'm not saying the rule should be implemented or not, but there is no reason to do it the exact same way as the first time when you can do it in a different and maybe better way.

^ +1.

I haven't played it before, so I can't say what it should or shouldn't be. But the event should evolve into the best it can be (whatever changes that means).

@Dunga, you are too modest!
@cris, i just think is better allowed the player to play all games, and leave the line up completely free.
@Frank, you are right. Ofc we can change it, but as i already say many time, i think we shouldn't change it.

Gnuff:

It depends on what the goal is. In your scenario (allowing them to play in all games), the team with the best player should win (unless as you say someone does not listen on your team). If you limit their games/formats, then it puts more of a premium on depth (you rely more on the 2nd-3rd best on your team). It also puts more strategy into forming the teams (you have to decide where to put your best players).

Is the goal of this to have a couple top players carry their team, or to find out who has the best collection of players?

I think this question needs to be asked in many of these types of tournaments. Like the clan league for example. In WG, we are using every player that is active, and only two players are playing in 2 of the formats (because we had to). IMO, that is the way it should be. A measure of a clan isn't just if you have two great players IMO. On the other hand, you shouldn't be required to use your weakest link either.

But in this case, you shouldn't really have bad players on your team 1. I think it adds something to have more players relied upon. Otherwise why not just make 4 alternate accounts and play the whole team yourself?

There were rules about alternate accounts in the previous tournament.
And 1 player playing alone is not the best case, the best player is not better than if he would play talking to someone as good as him.

Hmm so let me play with Inferno and Gladiators XD
I will show you that 1 good player with puppet is best case ;)