Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Begrudgingly approved by Boat

As 1v1 has developed over time, its tournaments have come to be a major focal point of the entire community, which has led to an increased need for ironing out the existing formats for each tournament in order to ensure that they are all operating smoothly, as well as experimenting with potential new tournament formats in order to ensure that our tournament lineup is engaging and interesting across the entire year. Naturally, the most important part of any tournament will always be you, the players! The purpose of this thread is for gauging the opinion of the community on any potential changes to tournament formats as described by the 1v1 Tournament Director team.

Now, before you post, there are some important guidelines that you should keep in mind:
  • This is a serious thread. All posts here should offer something substantive and coherent. One line posts, shitposts, and anything not taking the purpose of the thread seriously will be deleted or even infracted.
  • Topics of discussion will be presented by the 1v1 Tournament Director team and closed once a conclusion has been reached. Do not discuss topics that the TD team has either closed or not presented yet.
  • If you have a suggestion of your own, but the current topic of discussion doesn't allow you to post it, you may feel free to message any of the TD team (myself, or Arai) with your suggestion or present it in the #tournament-discussion channel in the 1v1 Discord.
  • This thread is solely for the discussion of 1v1's official tournaments. If you have an idea for an unofficial tournament, you should message one of the TD team members or otherwise post your idea in #tournament-discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Official Glyx

Banned deucer.
Topics and Conclusions
1604960727959.png

Art by Brumirage
Topic I: Old Gens in the 1v1 Circuit

Now, the first topic for this thread shall be the matter of Old Gens and their place in the tournament circuit. For clarity, the 1v1 tournament circuit for next year will feature a much more comprehensive structure where players are awarded points moreso on a per-win basis, rather than exclusively making it to the top 16 or so. More importantly, each tournament that awards circuit points will be given a predetermined amount of circuit points that will be up for grabs. The currently planned tournament lineup features the following tours:

>>click here for a basic explanation of each tournament's format<<
1v1 Majors
1v1 Seasonals
1v1 Ladder Tour

To be discussed:
1v1 Classic
1v1 Live

The main point of contention here is whether or not Old Gen tournaments should give circuit points towards a Current Gen Championship, as well as how many points if so. With consideration to the format of 1v1 Championships, a notable concern is that having Old Gen focused tours like Classic and Live count towards circuit would create the potential risk of someone qualifying for Championships despite the fact that the circuit points they would be earning would not be as reflective of their skills in the format they would be playing in Championships.

With this in mind, this leaves us with a few options on how to go about handling the matter, namely:

  • Old Gen tournaments do not award circuit points (but will still be trophy tours).
  • Old Gen tournaments are set to provide points to the winner, though it will be fewer points relative to the Gen 8 focused tours.

Be sure to let us know your thoughts regarding the matter! And again, make sure your posts are solely relevant to the topic of whether or not Old Gen tournaments should count towards Championships.

As an important note, the format of 1v1 Championships is not up for discussion. While an option has been considered for a Best of 3 series with multiple Best of 5s starting with Gen 8 and then moving on to Gen 7 or 6 and so forth, the problem with this suggestion is that it places a lot more weight on the Old Gens, rather than Gen 8 which occupies a vast majority of the circuit. Using this format would require much more circuit involvement with Gens 7 and 6, which simply isn't feasible without undergoing massive circuit reform, and acts in contrast to the purpose of the current Gen being the main Gen.

Conclusion:


Old Gen tournaments will not hold any bearing towards Championships qualifications. In the case of the potential 1v1 Live tournament, only the Current Gen live tours will offer any points, with the notably more simplistic format of each live tour making them worth much less than something like a Seasonal.
 
Last edited:

Boat

fuck nintendo
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
Old Gens shouldn't count towards circuit at all. As we see with every major tournament with a qualification phase (Classic, Slam, STour and every Live format, OLT and every Ladder Tournament, etc), the playoffs of a tournament should be representative of the qualifiers played to get there. There is zero reason this shouldn't be extended to circuits. A Current Gen Championship should logically be qualified for by playing Current Gen tours. Even if you make it worth relatively little, high placers in Classic and Live would earn a solid chunk of points that could make the difference or even qualify someone entirely if they do well enough. To address the points that Rosa made:

"Old Gens have been a major part of 1v1's tournament scene, especially with consideration to the burst in popularity of SM as a result of the trainwreck that SS has been. Abandoning them (giving circuit points) completely seems a bit much, to me."

Old gens are a part of every tier's tournament scene, that doesn't mean they should be in the same conversation as Current Gen. I also don't think removing their circuit points is "abandoning them". Old Gens team tour representation will be unchanged or increase if we decide to add ADV. Live is a new tour, you can't abandon something that was never there. That leaves Classic, which is a tour with exactly 0 relevance in terms of metagame. You could make the argument that Live is somewhat relevant because of the Current Gen portion, but Classic has 0 SS representation and rewards a different skillset. Which brings us too...

"Additionally, the skills involved in playing each Gen are notably more similar to one another as opposed to how it goes in 6v6, which is why you often see the same handful of people performing well in Old Gens as you do in the current Gen. While of course the meta knowledge isn't exactly 1:1, being a good 1v1 player is an applicable trait to all Gens."

The idea that our Gens of 1v1 are more similar than comparable 6v6 tiers is just untrue. 6v6 rewards the same skillset regardless of tier. There's a reason that highly talented OU players find success in lower tiers without spending a ton of time playing them. Certainly, generally good 1v1 players like Close, CP2, and ggopw will find success in every gen. But we aren't special in this regard. Mons is mons.

I love Old Gens, SM is my favorite tier, I enjoy DPP, and I'm (sorta and reluctantly) coming around on ADV. But they just don't have a place counting towards a Current Gen Championship, banner, and one day, ribbon. The fact that several of our Championship qualifiers this circuit will qualify entirely because of Classic is really bad, and I would hate to see it happen again in the future, even on a smaller scale.
 
The difficult part is balancing the two aspects. One side being the best of the current generation, and the other being the best of other generations from previous years. The issue is how do you compare skill in generation 3 to that of generation 8. And yes, I suppose you could always add more tournaments and make each one more important/meaningful than the last but that kind makes things crowded and problematic for management.

I suppose my side is on the side of I'd prefer to call our "champion" the user who is the best overall and not just the best at the current generation.

  • 1v1 Championship ends up being either the best of the current generation, or the best of all the generations. Some have arguments for both ; have it be the same format/layout every year to have improved quality of play or have a "best of the year" at that point of the current generation like Pokemon Worlds does. So saying "1v1 Champion" applies to all of 1v1 as a whole new & old generations

When it comes to Pokemon, a question we all see in chat from time to time, "who is the best?" And its always met with mixed answers. ggopw, squirtell, xstatic cold, pqs, ect. If we decide to not have old generational tournaments affect 1v1 championship I'd prefer we use the idea below...

===============================================================================================

An idea I'm not against and allows both sides to be more happy is make Classic into the end of the year tournament, make it be the "championship" for older gens. It would allow us to crown the best of current and best of pervious. This idea I would enjoy a lot as it gives both sides their spotlight and respect.

Ex.
2021 World Champion: Boat
2021 Old Gens. Champion: Pazza


(just an idea that would be nice compromise for all parties)​
 

Boat

fuck nintendo
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
An idea I'm not against and allows both sides to be more happy is make Classic into the end of the year tournament, make it be the "championship" for older gens. It would allow us to crown the best of current and best of pervious. This idea I would enjoy a lot as it gives both sides their spotlight and respect.

Ex.
2021 World Champion: Boat
2021 Old Gens. Champion: Pazza


(just an idea that would be nice compromise for all parties)​
How is this different than what we have right now? The winner of Champs obviously is crowned "the best CG 1v1er" and Classic, as the only old gen tour, is functionally identical to what you described except for the title.
 
How is this different than what we have right now? The winner of Champs obviously is crowned "the best CG 1v1er" and Classic, as the only old gen tour, is functionally identical to what you described except for the title.
A title is big thing when you say "1v1" which implies all of 1v1. But the difference is separating them from Championship.
Rosa stated old gen tours, which would imply other than Classic. So if that's more or less the case it would make more sense to have Classic be on par with Championship. Due to currently it affects Championship and doesn't feel like a tour to crown the best of old gens if they play old gens right after in Championship.

So my idea the best I can put into words at 1am is...
Championships next year don't have anything to do with old gens what so ever to make both tours feel more important.
Because saying Classic is to crown the "best OG player" then have them play more old gens in Championship is kinda dumb and makes title feel less imo. You don't have world finals then have the winner of that play in another tournament 2 weeks later saying this is also the finals.

Make Old Gens separate to make it feel more special (having classic be the final old gens tour/matches of the year) or you classic ends up being apart of qualifying towards championship next year (basically making classic less as important in saying someone is the best) Is what I think I'm trying to say, again sorry its late and this all made way more sense earlier lol
 

Kaif

tensai
is a Tiering Contributor
  • Old Gens have been a major part of 1v1's tournament scene, especially with consideration to the burst in popularity of SM as a result of the trainwreck that SS has been. Abandoning them (giving circuit points) completely seems a bit much, to me.
This is very confusing, while its true that old gens are a major part of 1v1, you don't play old gens in circuit poffs so it doesn't make sense to play old gens in order to play not old gens. They should absolutely give 0 circuit points imo.
Additionally, the skills involved in playing each Gen are notably more similar to one another as opposed to how it goes in 6v6, which is why you often see the same handful of people performing well in Old Gens as you do in the current Gen. While of course the meta knowledge isn't exactly 1:1, being a good 1v1 player is an applicable trait to all Gens.
Boat put it pretty nicely that this is just false so lol!!
 
I am in favor of Option A, in this case.

I'm leaning towards reduced points being the way to go:
  • Old Gens have been a major part of 1v1's tournament scene, especially with consideration to the burst in popularity of SM as a result of the trainwreck that SS has been. Abandoning them (giving circuit points) completely seems a bit much, to me.
  • Additionally, the skills involved in playing each Gen are notably more similar to one another as opposed to how it goes in 6v6, which is why you often see the same handful of people performing well in Old Gens as you do in the current Gen. While of course the meta knowledge isn't exactly 1:1, being a good 1v1 player is an applicable trait to all Gens.
The whole premise of giving Old Gen tournaments circuit points when the tournament you're giving them circuit points for does not include them just does not make sense to me. Sure, "the skills involved in playing each Gen are notably more similar to one another", but I feel that applies to literally every format. As for your point on "abandoning them", that's really not the case. 1v1 oldgens are very well represented in the tournament circuit, and not giving them circuit points when you can't even play them in the tournament you're giving them circuit points for isn't really a loss. People play in 1v1 classic because they want to do well / have fun in 1v1's biggest old gens tour, not because they want to make top 8 and somehow be 10th seed of championships without doing anything in an SS tour. As for the counterargument I've heard from people in #tour-discussion of adding oldgens to championships, there's both really no reason to or any feasible way of making enough oldgen space in the circuit to do that.

Mubs out.
 

The Official Glyx

Banned deucer.
Topic I has reached its conclusion.

Old Gen tournaments will not hold any bearing towards Championships qualifications.
In the case of the potential 1v1 Live tournament, only the Current Gen live tours will offer any points, with the notably more simplistic format of each live tour making them worth much less than something like a Seasonal.

1604960194360.png

Art by AmirAlexander
Topic II: The Number of Slots in Premier League

The second topic shall be on the matter of how many slots further iterations of 1v1 Premier League should have. Given the nature of 1v1's growth in tournament signups from 2019 to 2020, the possibility of signups expanding even further into 2021 are very real. With this in mind, this brings us back to the topic of Premier League; should the scope of Premier League be broadened to better accommodate the growth in playerbase 1v1 is experiencing?

With this question in mind, it bears stating that the way you would go about broadening the scope of team tournaments would be by adding more format slots for people to play in each week. Consider the slots 1v1 currently uses:

SSBO7
SSBO5
SSBO5
SMBO5
SMBO5
ORASBO5
BWBO5
DPPBO5

If you wanted to expand on this lineup, there's a couple clear paths that could be taken:
  • Gen 3 1v1 has experienced a notable surge in activity and interest over the past few months, with its Cup in the recent 1v1 Classic being the largest in signup count besides Gen 7
  • 2v2 is a format that has been around for ages, even being involved in prior team tournaments, as well as always being suggested as a slot in just about every tournament discussion thread since its last inclusion back in Premier League III
  • Gen 8 1v1, while it already has 2 BO5 and 1 BO7, is the natural main focus, being the Current Gen, which often results in the brunt of signups being people who want to play it.

The main purpose of this topic is to decide on a suitable number of slots for the next coming Premier League, as well as potential future iterations of the tournament. From this discussion stems the purpose of why more players should be involved in a team tournament or vice versa, as well as what formats would be added if we were to move to 10 slots.

Some important notes to keep in mind:
  • This discussion has no bearing on the slots for World Cup, due to the very different nature of how teams are assembled.
  • Increasing the minimum number of subs is not an option, given how SPL, a tournament several magnitudes larger, still uses 2 minimum subs.
  • Multigen as a potential slot will not be considered, as that is a format generally better suited for the playoffs of tours like 1v1 Classic and Live.
  • Using 9 slots will not be considered, in the interest of avoiding large scale tiebreaks for playoffs seeding.
 

The Official Glyx

Banned deucer.
I'll start it off again.

I feel 10 slots is the best way to go. The net purpose of team tours is to have fun, to which I believe the more the merrier (within reason). Sticking to the same number of players that we used back when we got roughly half as many signups just doesn't really make sense to me. In my opinion, all it does is result in the same handful of players being involved in the tour, with the only changes resulting from people quitting showdown to make space for newer players or said newer players making a strong enough name for themselves so that way they're sure to be drafted, even though Premier League should be just as much an opportunity for newer players to make a name for themselves like any other tour.

Given how last Premier League had 92 drafted players out of 207 signups, as well as 1v1's growth resulting in the recent World Cup getting over 240 signups, sticking to 8 slots would very possibly result in only roughly a third of the people who sign up being able to play, assuming the number of drafted players stays roughly the same as last year.

As for the slots themselves, I feel that an added SS and ADV are probably the best way to go, so that way you have a nice balance of adding 1 Current Gen and 1 Old Gen for the nice 40/60 ratio of CG:OG.

Arguments about the validity of a non-1v1 format being in a 1v1 tour aside; when it comes to 2v2, I can't help but feel that it's gone down a similar path to 1v1, where 1v1 wanted to be in OMPL so badly until we finally became a more developed tier with our own team tours such that just having a single slot in OMPL would no longer be sufficient to encompass all of 1v1. 2v2PL is already well capable of bringing in dozens of signups, to which I don't feel that it'd do 2v2 justice to try and contain it all down to just 1 slot.

I'm not gonna die on any of these hills if people are really against it, I just think 10 slots with added SS and ADV is the most balanced way to go about it without putting too much of a focus on oldgens.
 

Boat

fuck nintendo
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
1v1PL is, without a doubt, the most elite tournament in 1v1. World Cup is an inherently unfair tournament, and our individuals all serve to give anyone and everyone an equal opportunity to prove they're the best. But that's just not the identity of 1v1PL, or Premier League style tournaments in general. One of the main appeals of PL is seeing what happens when the best of the best come to play. With that in mind, I think 8 slots is the way to go.

Since I always somehow end up on the opposite side of Rosa for literally every discussion, I guess I'll start by addressing her points.

The net purpose of team tours is to have fun, to which I believe the more the merrier (within reason).

Certainly the point of playing Pokemon in general is to have fun, but to simplify the goal of Team Tournaments to a singular goal of "having fun" isn't really accurate. Additionally, many people derive their fun from playing in high stakes, extremely competitive tournaments. The nature of competition is such that your fun can depend entirely on the skill of your opponent. Moving up to 10 slots could dilute the player pool to be less fun for some people.

Sticking to the same number of players that we used back when we got roughly half as many signups just doesn't really make sense to me.

This argument only is valid if you can prove that PL III's ratio of signups to drafted was correct, which we have a great deal of evidence that it was not. There were 150 signups for PL III, and 90 of them were drafted. That ratio is insanely high, as I mentioned several times in the past after my discussion with Eien.

In my opinion, all it does is result in the same handful of players being involved in the tour, with the only changes resulting from people quitting showdown to make space for newer players or said newer players making a strong enough name for themselves so that way they're sure to be drafted, even though Premier League should be just as much an opportunity for newer players to make a name for themselves like any other tour.

I think Morpekos from PL IV made a great case for why people should be more willing to give new people a chance. An extremely green zio was one of the best pickups our team had, and even STABLE was relatively unproven in BW at the time. There is absolutely an incentive to try and find dark horses in PL, and I think the value of those people will go down with 10 slots, not up. Also, as I said in my opening paragraph, Premier League is not the tournament where everyone gets to come in and have a fun time. Not getting drafted sucks, but we have an entire tournament circuit of open tournaments where you can prove yourself.

Given how last Premier League had 92 drafted players out of 207 signups, as well as 1v1's growth resulting in the recent World Cup getting over 240 signups, sticking to 8 slots would very possibly result in only roughly a third of the people who sign up being able to play, assuming the number of drafted players stays roughly the same as last year.

That...feels fine? One third of signups being drafted feels like a very good ratio, and is actually consistent with SPL. SPL XI had 631 signups, and 175 people were drafted, which is actually closer to 1/4 than 1/3.

As for the slots themselves, I feel that an added SS and ADV are probably the best way to go, so that way you have a nice balance of adding 1 Current Gen and 1 Old Gen for the nice 40/60 ratio of CG:OG. Arguments about the validity of a non-1v1 format being in a 1v1 tour aside; when it comes to 2v2, I can't help but feel that it's gone down a similar path to 1v1, where 1v1 wanted to be in OMPL so badly until we finally became a more developed tier with our own team tours such that just having a single slot in OMPL would no longer be sufficient to encompass all of 1v1. 2v2PL is already well capable of bringing in dozens of signups, to which I don't feel that it'd do 2v2 justice to try and contain it all down to just 1 slot. .

I agree with adding an SS in the event that we go up to 10, but that last slot is a bitch. I absolutely agree with the points you made about 2v2. I've been trying to get 2v2 more integrated in 1v1 for awhile now, as you know, but I think at this point, that ship has sailed. 2v2 has developed too much on their own for us to suddenly try and reclaim them. However, I don't think ADV is the answer either. I feel extremely confident saying that there are not enough ADV players to go around. Every old gen comfortably reaches at least 8, usually more, players who would be drafted almost exclusively on their ability to play that tier alone. ADV does not even come close. In an earlier discussion with Stable, I asked him to name 8 people who can play ADV at a PL level.

(classic loser) StableToday at 4:28 PM
Me LRXC Tom Boat Maki zio carpe eblurb

Me (Stable) - dude put up the best BW record in PL IV and he thinks he's playing ADV
LRXC - yep
Tom - sure
Boat - absolutely not, the fact I'm on this list is proof that this list is a stretch and a half.
Maki - valid, but I find it hard to see him playing ADV over SM or SS
zio - anybody putting zio in anything other than ss is a lunatic
carpe - sure? i dont really know
eblurb - valid ig but again, would you really want him in ADV out of any tier.

There just aren't enough ADVers to go around, god forbid one team picks two of them up, which is not unrealistic at all. Stable's counterpoint was that in WCop he learned BW just for that tour, but that's not how things work in PL. You would never buy someone and then tell them "you're gonna learn ADV." That's a key difference between PL and WCop.

Between the concerns I have about the competitiveness of the tour and the viability of ADV or 2v2 as a 10th slot, I feel very confident that 8 slots is the way to go.
 

SiceXV

Banned deucer.
I counted how many players that I think won't be drafted or aren't returning as players that participated last year
From Skewdas: sager0027, crucify(only wants to manage), Ferno
From Terrors: Blunder
Dustoxes: Eriey?, Quote, avarice, nonbinaryagenda
Morpekos: maxy, Smajet, Quakins, Cantius, 5luke,Francy, Togli?
RPS: Caasi, Volkner, akaFila, Levi, kjdass, Skysolo, Robyn
Pults: ggopw :(, Raining, Endal, Quar, Perse (unless ggopw gets unbanned)
Goats: 7shoes, TI, DMPancake, Andy Snype
Rays: Raj Shoot, ayedan, Betathunder, Gareth, Tol, plant based, trace, Jho, DEG(pretty sure only wants to manage), Gunderson, Anime Sans, neomon?


That's already 40ish new slots for potential players to breakthrough who care about the tier or are active. Team tours are suppose to be fun, but also showcase the best players of the community, and last PL there were some highly suspect matches even with only 8 slots. There's a lot of new blood in the community and a lot of old faces leaving/moving on so I think 8 slots is still fine to have to make PL as competitive as wcup was.

If we were to have 10 slots, I agree with boat and that ADV is not developed enough to be put in PL, and that it should be 2v2 and another SS IMO as I think it would give some of the 2v2 goons time to shine/start, since they have a bigger pool of established players.

Also here's a list of players who "broke out" who were PL rookies last year
zio, sice, potato, smelly socks, LBDC, Maki, dogknees
 
Last edited:
I think 8 slots is the superior option. I've discussed and thought about both 8 and 10 slots for a while now and for me, the pros and cons of both point towards 8. First off, I want to establish what I think personally is the goal of PL. To me, PL is the most competitive tour 1v1 has and always will be. When talking about how to adjust how it is run, its competitive nature should be priority #1. It is the premier league after all.

Competetive tours are fun, rewarding, and memorable. While I get the want to kinda just mess around and have fun in a team environment, personally I think teams getting curb stomped by vastly superior competition is boring from a player and spectator standpoint. Last PL was massively dominated by one team (BBB), with 4 others putting up anywhere from a decent to mediocre fight (Pekos, Megarays, TTT, and Pults.) The other 3 (Dustox, Gogoats, and RPS) getting farmed super hard. When a team with -11 differential is somehow not dead last there is an issue. People watch the major leagues over the minor leagues for a reason, there's nothing interesting about a one-sided or low-level tour.

10 slots aren't really needed. Sure, we're bound to have a good player or two left undrafted but if anything that's a manager issue. Reaching out to new talent is a critical part of a good team, speaking from personal experience, US Central went from a consistently dead last/bottom 3 partially because new talents like smely socks and Sanshokuinsumireko were given a shot off previous lack of/middling results. Also speaking from the perspective of one of those players who were given a chance on the Pekos thanks to Boat / Alakazam I think 8 slots more than allows for unprovens to prove themselves. This all being said, I think the one valid argument for 10 slots is an expansion of the tiers we can showcase. The issue being that a) ADV/2v2 are gambling that they become another incredibly top-heavy tier (playerwise) b) the allure of more metas doesn't properly distract from the lowered competition.

tl:dr The only real issues w/ 8 slots are easily amended by good managers, as shown by last PL we hardly have enough competent managers for 8. Moving to 10 when it has minimal upsides will lead to an incredibly lopsided tour.
 
Hey,

I'm on the side of 8 slots, and I mostly agree with zio's points. We don't have the managing personnel (at least none that have fit the glimpses we've gotten of the 1v1TD's standards regarding... behavior for lack of a better word) for ten slots and 3-4 substitutes. Some of the managers picked over the last few PLs aren't at the level of managing competence to make such a jump as competitive as possible. Retaining what we had prior allows us to have as competitive a tour as possible. If we're really worried about not having good players get drafted, adding another sub slot isn't the worst idea.

As for a situation of 10 slots, if it comes to this: it's another SS Bo5 and the choice of 2v2 or ADV. Of course, it's obvious what I'd support. My argument stems from 3 points: Our development since the last PL, prior tournament history in 1v1, and how our removal from both the forum and team tournaments was orchestrated. When looking at ADV and 2v2 as nothing more than metagames and communities, it's quite apparent that one metagame has done more to make themselves an adequate PL slot than the other, after being told they weren't developed enough in the last installment of this tournament. I fully believe that 2v2 has enough development and players to justify a 10th slot. Its history in 1v1 team tours further supports that statement. To touch on the subject of our former tournament representation, I feel I should address the statements/excuses made with regards to 2v2's removal. First, it was the desire by DEG to make it a pl-only tour. Then, it was a lack of development (which in hindsight was justified) and the creation of 1v1 Snake for "other" 1v1 formats, which no longer exists. What is the excuse now? That 2v2 is too independently developed to be put in PL now, even when that is no fault of our own, as we were forced to find a way to independently develop by some of the people making this argument? And before someone attempts to bring up that doing team tournaments should be hurting our case, look at ADV. It has been in the biggest 1v1 oldgen tournament multiple times, and it's still being told that it "doesn't have enough mains" to be worth putting in 1v1PL V. Of course, I'm not arguing against that, but it's quite evident that they're kinda in Catch-22; It needs mains to be worth putting in a team tournament, but the best (if not the only probable) way to get those mains is to be in a team tournament. That's why I did 2v2PL: the best way to get team tournament development is to be in a team tournament, and if I didn't accept that reality, we'd continue to be in that cycle. And even if we were in a position where that didn't matter in our inclusion, 2v2 without its team tournaments would be at around ADV's development level, if not lower. If that were the case, there wouldn't be an argument here.

Anyway, thanks for reading and have a nice day. Mubs out.
 
I thought this was a 1 and done thread, had no idea Mubs thx for including me when you said "tp thread" or else I'd have no idea :p

Anyways, I'm very much aware of the 8/10 slot rule. If we expand to 10 slots that will include an extra 16 users. So far seems pretty straight forward. Growing community, make more spots. However I did want to bring up the topic of something else as it will come into play in years to come if not implemented now. My thought process when it comes this is if we gain 16 players with the introduction of 10 spots, is there a way to further grow this or even make a greater leap.

As shown from the amount of entries as well as stated by the users above, 1v1 has grown a lot. And will continue to keep growing. "Yes I saw the "no 9 team" thing. Its stupid to introduce an odd number. My thought was why not 10 teams. Other PLs have done this and it turned out fine. And I do see the concern in do we have enough "qualified" ppl to manage. I believe we do, and even if you don't believe so I still believe others should be given the chance to prove that. Its 2-4 competent users, and its not like the host wouldn't have a say in who these users are. It adds an extra 20+ spots, and gives us more games. Although I am quite sure the consensus will be "not this year!" and someone getting defensive and panicking just something to think about I suppose.

At the end of the day, I've always been on the side opportunity for 1v1. Adding more users into the tour is always a great thing, and hopefully allow those who always sign up for the tours but never get drafted a chance to compete.

-Joker
 

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Hey! I heard from people around that we're thinking of going with 10 slots for PL instead of 8. There's many reasons that show that this is a bad idea for now. I might be doing nothing but echoing people words but I just wanted to vouch in.

First of all, when you bring up players signups you need to put into calculations how many of these people are dedicated to the tournament, and how many of these players are actually familiar with everything Smogon has to offer. I've decided to be a bit harsh and put the bar to 50 posts when it comes to knowledge but that's what I expect from you when you're trying to enter a competitive tournament. Last PL had roughly 208 total signups with 54 people under 50 posts so only 74%~ of the people, for WC 84 / 259 is roughly 68%~, I'm not denying that some people with little posts got drafted but this should be a more accurate data when you look at dedication and not random signups, also most people that get drafted comes from the pool of >50 posts which shows u that the amount of people draft is fair.

Secondly, when you're hosting a competitive tourmament the idea isn't inclusion. There's MANY 1v1 tournaments where fun is the main goal but when it comes to Premier League / World Cup we're talking about the elite 1v1ers. I don't believe it's fair for a lot of people to get drafted, you're also (as sice said) not guaranteed to get the same people signing up again. A lot of people signup from year to year but end up doing nothing and just dip, no offense but when you look at the list you know who. The player pool will always be refreshed, and we shouldn't force this cycle. The cycle is natural, new people prove themselves in Seasonal, Cup, LT, they get drafted and some oldies quit / don't play and they don't get drafted. I mean we've seen pqs not get drafted in WC after a poor performance, or even Mubs but new blood like Arctic got drafted on US East, this cycle is natural and you'll find a lot more examples in other teams. We can also look at WC where new people get introduced to 1v1, personal experience Euphonos and philisteen were given a chance in Asia and they did do amazing which put them in the pool for future tournaments. So yes, the goal isn't to have fun but to be competitive, and in a competitive scene only the best makes it and not randoms that want to have fun. These newer players should prove themselves in smaller tournament before and that's a challenge of its own. These newer people also have chances of making it in the future when you look at WC where many regions don't get easy 12 people.

When it comes to format, I believe the way to go is to not fix what isn't broken. ADV is still in-development and can see more development before becoming a popular and stable metagame. I believe that formats like ADV, UU 1v1, and some others should be given some spotlight but not in PL nor WC. 1v1 OMs as a whole isn't something that people are interested in when you go for the long run so I think a PL-like team tournament focusing on ADV, and some old gens can see the light someday, specially with future generations creeping around and the need to keep cutting metagames.

I'm old and out of touch though!
 

Boat

fuck nintendo
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
It occurs to me that Topic II was never closed. 1v1 Premier League V will have eight slots.

Topic III - The Future of Bo7 in 1v1

For those not in the know, CG Bo7 is a slot that is exclusively played in team tours. It is usually featured alongside two or more CG Bo5 slots, and is the guaranteed slot in a tiebreak. Over the course of the last few team tours, it has become clear that many of the people playing the Bo7 slot do not enjoy it, for multiple reasons. Alongside other issues, It has a higher teambuilding burden and the series takes a long time. Proponents of the Bo7 slot say that it demands a higher level of consistency, and having a place to slot your best player results in a lot of highlight matches. Should the CG Bo7 slot be replaced with another CG Bo5 slot?

Some important notes to keep in mind :
- Any multigen format (Bo3o5 / Bo5o1) as a replacement for Bo7 will not be considered. Do not suggest it.
- This discussion should be kept about the Bo7 slot. Please don't bring up other slots you want to change.
- Keeping Bo7 in the tournament while making Bo5 the guaranteed slot in the tiebreak is definitely an option, please bring it up if you support that.
 
As far as I know, removing bo7 from PL (or WCup for that matter) has not been seriously suggested, and for good reason. Even as someone who is not fond of the format, it makes little sense to remove it. There are always gonna be people who have preferences but to me, this doesn't really signify an issue with bo7 as a format. A fair amount of players prefer bo7 to bo5 for various reasons such as mitigating cheese, more realistic comebacks, and a lack of the insanely specific building. The only real issues with bo7 that aren't a matter of preference are exceedingly long series and potential team issues. Both of these are pretty negligible, both can be remedied.

On length, if either player wishes for the series to be sped up they can simply request to play on smogtours or auto-timer. I do believe there should be some sort of limit on mid-series stalling, especially when live tours roll around, as often the cause of hour+ long series are it taking forever in between games as well as a combo of not insta-timering and for those of us with a life outside of mons an hour+ long series is an unacceptable amount of time. My first ever team tour series took nearly an hour, a little over an hour if you count the 10-15 mins I waited for my opp to show. In the time of the series, I was able to drive out to dinner with my family then come back home and after it all, I was still on game 5 in a bo7. In my opinion, 5 minutes is more than a sufficient amount of time to pick a team/use the restroom/solve whatever external issue. The issue is how can you enforce this, tourbanning someone for taking one more minute on the shitter than anticapated seems ridiculous and there's no way to tell if someone is lying about w/e external issue just to buy some extra time. Imo, a pretty realistic solution is allowing a player to "John" once per series. If they have to attend to some outside issue, allow them one instance of going over the 5 min clock that should be enforced in between games. This one "John" should still not take over 8/10 minutes though. Fixing stalling is not an easy problem, but I believe my solution or a similar system should at very least mitigate the issue.

On teambuilding, if the team does not have enough builders to support its slots, that's a manager issue not an issue of bo7. The leap from 15 to 17 CG teams is really minor especially when you have the option of reusing cores/teams. If your team cannot manage 17 teams, the jump to 15 is unlikely to largely mitigate the issue of a lack of builders. Ideally, players should be at least semi-self sufficient or at the least work fine w/ solid support. I don't see this as an issue to any well-built PL team. WCup you'd have a better case considering teams have to work w/ what they're are given, but as excellent managers such as DEG have shown getting teams/wins in CG w/ minimal prior builders is a doable task if the manager accommodates the players.

tldr: there's not really a reason to remove bo7 and a fair amount of players have an interest in the format + stalling by either taking an excessive amount of time in between games or not auto-timering is a ridiculous tactic that hurts all formats universally and there should 100% be some ruling defining and restricting stalling
 

XSTATIC COLD

Banned deucer.
1v1 pl should be 6 players.

no more ggopw, gohar, denis, ryy or solar. no more good players and only "noobs"

8 slots has too many new players we need 6 slots for only good players. pl will be very boring with a lot of unexperimented guys which is why im purposing 6 slots because too many primarina and togekiss/jirachi skilled players. 1v1 has lost a lot of good players and maybe i will not even play we will see but i do not think many good players left for pl.

#bring back old 1v1 and Good players. Btws When i say noob i do not mean bad player I mean new player.

#Keep bo7 it's one of my fav tiers with some guys too.

#It would be good if urshifu or victini was banned in dlc2... we see only the same teams and it would enable more originality in every team.

Make pl great again.
 
Ok, I’m gonna preface this by saying this is my first time making a post in a thread that isn’t a suspect reqs thread or a tournament signup, so please bear with me if this doesn’t turn out to be impeccable. It would also seem my timing isn’t great since zio expressed my thoughts exactly on the matter, but I figured I’d chime in as well and share my 2 cents as a seasoned 1v1 tour player.

So, to answer the question in Boat’s post: No, CG Bo7 shouldn’t be replaced with another BO5 slot; quite the opposite, the CG Bo7 slot should be kept in place.

I know I’m in the minority when I say this, but I firmly believe that Bo7 is more competitive than BO5. Like it has already been stated, it almost always rewards the overall better/more consistent player and it limits, I’d even argue punishes, the so called cheese strats. I can see where people who are against it are coming from (some series definitely take too long and it can put a relatively heavy burden on teambuilding, although these factors can be fixed like zio said), but I think most of the complaints are coming from people who have never played in a Bo7 slot or, in any case, not enough to form a clear judgement. I’m saying this because I used to be a Bo7 “hater” myself before trying my hand at it in the previous PL. As a result, I ended up loving it for the reasons mentioned above and becoming the team’s dedicated Bo7 slot. It’s undeniably the most stressful slot to play in and it requires a bit more “stamina” than the BO5 one, but frankly if you’re playing in a tour and want to succeed you need a certain degree of mental fortitude anyway, be it Bo5 or Bo7.

So yeah, to sum it up, I 100% agree with what zio said. I apologize if this was one rambly post, but I just wanted to share my humble opinion
 
Last edited:

Elo Bandit

youtube.com/ EloBandit
is a Community Contributor
On Bo7-

The more games played in a series, the more likely the better player comes out on top. RNG is often the deciding factor in best of 5s, but its incredibly rare to cheese four wins in a series versus a stronger player. In the spirit of competition, best of 7 should be kept as the highest skill slot for current gen.

For builders, putting together seven teams (plus or minus) does not constitute a serious challenge. PL is pretty unique with the level of team support each player has access to - no one should end up playing with a teambuilder deficit if captains draft sufficient builders and support players. The Bo7 slot starter who's most comfortable piloting a wide range of teams will have a noticeable advantage against someone who only uses their favorite pool of 3/4 teams or always uses the same team style.

Finally, best of 7s give players the opportunity to spend enough time playing against an opponent to figure out how they respond to different situations. Are they a safe or aggressive picker, do they recycle teams, do they take risks at team preview, what assumptions do they make about your teams? Slightly longer formats allow more in-depth analysis of both sides, which the more capable player can take advantage of.

Best of seven is objectively more competitive than best of five, rewarding the well-rounded, well-prepared, analytical player willing to adapt to their opponent's style of play. It should stay in this year's Premier League.
 

Boat

fuck nintendo
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
(I definitely didn't intend to do this before PL and forgot)

I want to bring up the idea of implementing retains and franchises into 1v1 Premier League. For those unfamiliar, here's how it works.

Franchises are simple; we use the same team names every year, and (competent) managers that have history with a team are generally given priority to manage that team. We could do some sort of community poll or voting to determine which past teams we want to turn into our eight franchises.

Retains are a bit more complex, but the idea is simple. Players you draft can be bought by their old team without them going to auction. The price for the player is based on their original auction price. The exact formula is as follows :

Previous year price + (3k * (number of times retained + 1)) OR 10k, whichever is higher.

In simple terms, it costs 3k to retain someone, and an extra 3k for however many times they've been retained. For example, lets say I buy three players. I buy DEG for 3k, dogknees for 9.5k, and Rosa for 15k. Here's how their price would increase as I retain.

First retain - DEG 10k, dogknees 12.5k, Rosa 18k
Second retain - DEG 16k, dogknees 18.5k, Rosa 24k
Third retain - DEG 25k, dogknees 27.5k, Rosa 33k

There is a limit on the number of players you can retain in a given season. For SPL, the limit is 3. For 1v1PL, 2 sounds more reasonable to me.

Franchises allow a team to develop identity and legacy over time. Retains add another tactical element to the draft that rewards managers who find hidden gems and good underpays during the auction. I think this would be a very fun addition to the tournament that we should discuss.
 

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Hello, I've always been with the idea of standardizing the Premier League so we can make it more and more its own format. This should be done by creating our own franchise.



First of all, standardizing the Premier League adds a competitive value to the tournament we play which makes it feel better to play. We also evade the problem when it comes to team names, no offense but PL V names were worst teams names of all-time, adding to that we take off the burden of going to find artists every year to make a logo. This should make the tournament more professional, and competitive.



Secondly, franchises create a new layer of dynamic when it comes to the draft plans. Instead of drafting and hoping the tour goes well, managers will now be forced to strategize more when it comes to the draft. Managers should be able to assure that their draft plan can have longevity going forward the following years, and decide if a player is worth to keep in exchange of less credits in the draft. This should also make the draft more competitive and more enjoyable when it comes to strategies.



Adding more layers to drafting and finally having normal team names should be what we're looking for when trying to make the Premier League better. I have compiled subjectively a list of all good team names that we had through the years of PL, if the idea is implemented a community vote should decide the best eight (8) names that should be adapted. These are the team names that I think are good enough in no specific order: Vivacious Virizions, Juuling Jumpluffs, Metro Boomin Mega Rays, Hellfire Heatrans, RPS Rhyperior, Playful Panchams, Big Baller Barraskewdas, Drive-By-Dragapults, Mighty Morphin Morpekos, Trigger-Happy Thwackeys, and Tea Time Terrors. Also let's not forget Thotting Tsareenas.



With that being said, this could either be adapted for next PL. We proceed by labelling current teams from 1 to 8 following the regular season standings, returning managers will be able to pick the name that goes with their current team number, meanwhile the other numbers and names will be randomized. Managers are ignored for retains, and you can only have one (1) retain per team following the SPL pricing method. Then, for PL VII we ignore the numbers and just go with teams + players allowing two (2) retains. Allowing only one retain for next year is the best outcome, since you let people get used to the idea, while not fully implementing it. The regular number of retains should be only two for the future seasons as I think this number is fair and probably the most balanced, but we could as well only do it one (1) for future seasons too. Ofc ignoring managers in retains will always be set, and we should probably have a new policy for managers prices, but that's for another day.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top