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
I would like to thank everyone for taking time to make posts and discuss about the matter, this discussion has been fruitful and I do appreciate everyone's posts. The objective is to make this tournament competitive and fun for as many people as we can because in the end this is just a game we play to enjoy our time since there's no real prize on the line. However, I don't think we can make an unanimous decision in this case, specially since there's a lot of people taking different sides and some people's goals have been shifted, and a lot of people have been voicing their support toward adding Multigen but indifferent to the DPP case, meanwhile some people want DPP removed, and others want DPP to stay, and whatever side you take there will always be opposition, this is why my objective here is to cater to as much people as I can. Fwiw, Rosa and I discussed Multigen over DPP and as it was said it was a stalemate which would have ended with status quo without further external discussion, so I decided to advance the idea of Multigen over SM2, and we both happened to agree. Now, I'm not saying my opinion is the correct one, or that we're heading to the correct decision, but I wanna hear more opinions about the matter, and this is why we created more external discussion, to get the community more and more involved since they're the ones participating in this tournament and everyone has the right to have fun. No, we're not ignoring the community, as it was stated by a user or two on the discord.

Anyways, I'm still with adding Multigen and either with removing DPP and SM2, I think both of these slots are problematic, and if it came down to me I'd remove both and add another format alongside Multigen. But since that's out of the table, I don't really mind which slot we're removing (DPP or SM2), so I'm gonna listen to the community feedback and base my decision on that. Now, I do have things to add for both sides, and I hope people tell me which points they agree / disagree with.

On DPP -

As people know I've surveyed people that voted in the previous suspect tests if they're going to signup for PL and if yes, if they're going to play DPP.

Yes for both: Dj Breloominati♬, neomon, Meowth (from Team Rocket), Euphonos, Yami, Jabiru, Urfgurgle, PA, Vrji
Might not join but would play DPP: Inkreativ 187 Fan (I've talked with Ink and he said 30% yes, 70% no, so I'd remove these names when trying to argue about playerbase, and if they join then great!)
While the rest of the list voted no.

Now I do understand some people are question point activity wise (neomon, spitfire) or haven't played before (Vrji), so if you're willing to play, please confirm again and there's some people are looking to manage (James+Euph), (Jab), and if hypothetically they get picked that leaves 6 teams with no DPP, and there's just enough from the people that say yes and that ignoring the fact that maybe some people are willing to learn.

On the other hand, having an exact number of players as teams is dangerous and specially if one doesn't signup incase something happens, or even a team grabbing two, plus another negative is the burden that it cause on funds and whatsoever. Plus, some people on that list can also go to other gens, specially reinforce BW and SM2.

However, if there's a playerpool, and people that are willing to play DPP and don't want to migrate to another slot then I don't see why we should take away that possibility away from them, example people like SuperMemeBroz and Sanshokuinsumireko have stated their desire to learn DPP.

Plus, maybe giving DPP a chance after the Shaymin ban will be worth it?

On SM2 -

Yea, it was my idea to remove SM2 for Multigen to reach a compromise between both parties. I frankly do not think that SM2 deserve two slots. SM has a high entry barrier so the amount of newcomers wiling to learn SM is going down, and other people are either moving away from Pokemon or branching to other slots. I'm gonna utilize PL as an example of SM cause in WC there's restrictions even though in WC the SM2 slot was way worse.

TheShadowClaw + Lancer/Joker
Landon + frostyicelad/Rosa
Rumia+ Elo Bandit/Boat
Satanic Beast + Freddy Kyogre
Kentari + Close/Jabiru/XSTATIC COLD/pqs
Downcoming3 + Jamez/Grain2Sel/Tol/Leru
Squirtell + lmni/Felucia/SoulWind
LBDC + ACII/Bopher

Team 1: TSC hasn't been around for a while so no clue if they're going to play, Lancer and Joker can perfectly branch out to other gens, Lancer can go to ORAS and Joker can go to SS/BW/ORAS so removing SM2 has a loss of 0 players.
Team 2: Landon perfectly fits into SM1. Frosty has done bad in the past so SM2 isn't competitive, idk where he goes though. Rosa had to fill SM2 due to frosty failing to win some weeks and Rosa can go anywhere. Loss: Frosty
Team 3: Rumia and Boat are one trick SM pony so its fair. Boat might venture to DPP or SS? Bandit can go ORAS. This team has okay SM1 and SM2. Loss: Unclear, probably none.
Team 4: Satanic Beast is has been a beast in SM, so easily SM1. Freddy Kyogre was stuck in SM2 after not playing for long but his games weren't particularly competitive and he can branch out to BW as he's a council member
Team 5: Broken team ;) Had to shuffle a bit around SM. Kentari, XSC, Close are both SM1 worthy, Jabiru had to pick it up to fill up though I think he'd prefer going into DPP and if no DPP SM2 is fair. Close likes MG/SS more so not sure here but I'll count him. Pqs been doing pretty bad at SM for past team tours, slot him SS honestly. Loss: 0
Team 6: DC3 quit, Jamez would rather go MG/DPP/BW, G2S did bad, Tol did bad, Leru was only in one slot to cover the lacking SM2 slot. Loss: tol only since Leru can be fed in any slot. Loss: Tol. G2s hasn't been seen in a while
Team 7: Squirtell SM1. Lmni banned, Felucia won't be playing, SW idk if they're playing but can venture in old gens. Loss: 0
Team 8: LBDC SM1, ACii Banned, Bopher can venture in other gens. Loss: 0

SM1 pool: TSC, Landon, Rumia, Satanic Beast, Kentari, XSC, Squirtell, LBDC. Tentatively Close (idk if he wants to play SM) and Boat. So we have 9 SM1 slots which will force competitive games.
SM2 pool: Lancer, Joker, Frosty, Rosa, Bandit, Jabiru, G2s, Tol, Leru, Bopher.

As we can see from added names, and I don't mean to hurt anyone but SM2 seems pretty lackluster and locking the best SMers into one slot will bring more competitive gaming into that slot, plus I believe most SM2 players can go into any other gen and do better except a few names. Plus that lackluster slot was worse in WC where teams had to slot Arai and Xander into SM2 because they had no other "mainer" to do so. And I believe a lot of "non mainers" don't mind playing other slots, correct me if I'm wrong. So I believe removing SM2 gives us a better draft since it reinforces a lot of old gens slots specifically BW, and ORAS, and maybe some people from SM2 will learn DPP.

However, if people think SM2 deserves another chance and has the numbers / competitive factor then I'm open to hear other opinions.

Once again, I'm ready to listen to opposing opinions and please do write so we can try and cater to as many people as we can.
 
Last edited:
Amidst extensive discourse between myself and DEG behind the scenes, multiple alternatives have been both brought up and considered, namely of which being the idea brought up earlier in this thread to have Multigen in specifically World Cup rather than Premier League, as well as a proposal to drop SM2 instead of DPP. While the initial topic of the thread was about DPP and its place in our team tours (PL in particular was meant to be specified more), discussion between myself and DEG has reached a bit of a standstill, with multiple concerns coming forth regarding the impact that removal from team tours would have on DPP's development as a metagame, what the purpose of PL and WC are as team tournaments, as well as what kind of precedent a move like this would set in place for the future.

Starting off, the main issue that I have with canning DPP from team tours (PL especially) is that you're basically gutting any chance that the meta has to properly develop. When we especially consider that this action is mainly being considered because DPP is in a rough state right now, we have to take into consideration that the removal of these opportunities to develop DPP, in addition to the removal of the increased attention DPP gets as a metagame during team tours, would ultimately result in DPP facing a lot more challenges in getting out of that rough state, as well as the greater community not being able (or inclined) to see any potential change for the better. This would ultimately end up creating a feedback loop of DPP continuing to be hated and excluded from team tours as a result, unless you can get some major changes coming about from Classic and other sporadic individual tours, which are generally a lot more limited in the scope of meta development.

Next, we came to a bit of an impasse with regards to the impact of community support on PL, as well as WC by proxy, as a team tournament. My main thought here was that community support should namely be a more viable metric for decision making when it comes to WC, as it is a tournament intentionally designed around the community, in addition to multiple of the grievances against DPP brought up here applying more notably to WC, where your options for drafting are limited from everyone in each meta's pools of players to just whoever's nearby. As for PL, we couldn't really reach an agreement as to what extent community support should matter in terms of decision making.

Lastly, there were concerns about the precedent that a move like this would set. While changes to slots are nothing new in 1v1's team tournament history, with the removal of 1v1 UU after PL2, the removal of 2v2 after PL3, and the removal of the 2nd ORAS slot as well as the 4th current gen slot after moving to gen 8, a move like this would be the first time a properly developed 1v1 metagame gets removed from team tournaments in its entirety (ie being left with no slots at all). While a slotting squeeze may have been inevitable if we weren't at 10 slot size by gen 9, it is generally more preferable that these decisions be made out of such necessity, rather than arbitrarily preemptively axing a tier before gen 9 is even hinted at by Gamefreak. Beyond just that, setting the precedent of changing slots around mid-gen via community support sets the standard of having these discussions each time a team tour comes around, which is reminiscent of the perennial 2v2 vs DPP discussions that would come around as soon as the tournament discussion threads were posted throughout SM's time as the current generation, which generally resulted in more community splintering than anything of benefit.

Moving on, we now have our alternatives:
  • Canning DPP in only WC. As I mentioned above, WC teams face a lot tighter of a squeeze when it comes to getting someone to handle DPP (really all the oldgens in general) as a result of only being able to draft nearby players. Additionally, as a tournament whose format is designed specifically around the community and its population, it makes more sense that decisions be made by popular agreement here.
  • Dropping the 2nd SM slot instead. This was an idea brought up amidst our discussions that both of us feel could be a solid alternative. With the SM metagame being mostly stagnant beyond a couple new developments after becoming an old gen as well as a growing concern that the tier feels inaccessible to newer players, it stands to reason that we consider cutting back to just 1 slot. This option gives both sides what they want while not taking too much away from SM that it couldn't already accomplish with 1 slot.
With the above in mind, let us know your thoughts! Specifically, we're looking to get an idea of people's thoughts on the differences between PL vs WC as it pertains to slotting, and dropping SM2 vs DPP.
Cutting sm2 is a bad idea. The only people who want to keep dpp are either players who are paranoid about not getting drafted without it (most dpp players could move over to another slot, such as bw, oras, multi, ss3/sm2 and thrive) or tls. The community at large is in support of cutting dpp, and you shouldn't ignore that as a tier leader rosa (ratio). Acting like the meta won't develop if it isn't a slot in pl is foolish, as there are many people who are willing to help develop it. On that note, meta development in dpp is a stupid concept. If a meta is relatively "solved" like dpp is now, where nothing new is really happening until something is banned (which usually has minimal impact), what is there to develop? I understand the bans that have taken place and agree most of them were justified, however the meta will likely not change whatsoever without major tiering action. Back to sm2, sm in general has a very high level of entry, which many people trying to enter the scene cannot reach. Sm2 offers these people an oppurtunity to get into sm, without being very good, like the top sm players.

There is still the option, of course to keep pl the way it was before, as the whole point of adding multigen was to replace dpp. Who knows, maybe since shaymin was banned the meta will miraculously fix itself like it was supposed to with past bans.
 
Last edited:
The ideal situation here would be that we remove SM2 for Multigen, for the reasons laid out by DEG, and keep DPP and hope it will be more competitive this time around with the new changes to the tier. Unfortunately, DPP still does not have the playerbase for such an option if Ink and Fan don’t end up signing up. We are going to see the exact same thing as last year, RIDICULOUS price inflation on the few DPP players with results, while other teams opt to gamble with less reliable options. And as shown last PL, when these less reliable options fail, a player who doesn’t enjoy DPP typically has to sub in, like Zio or Trashuny.

I’m not saying axing DPP should be a permanent change, and it could always replace SM2 in a future team tour, but it should at least have to prove first that it has redeemed itself after the disasters it caused last PL.
 
i still think replacing dpp with multigen is better than replacing sm2.
On DPP -

As people know I've surveyed people that voted in the previous suspect tests if they're going to signup for PL and if yes, if they're going to play DPP.

Yes for both: Dj Breloominati♬, neomon, Meowth (from Team Rocket), Euphonos, Yami, Jabiru, Urfgurgle, PA, Vrji
Might not join but would play DPP: Inkreativ 187 Fan (I've talked with Ink and he said 30% yes, 70% no, so I'd remove these names when trying to argue about playerbase, and if they join then great!)
While the rest of the list voted no.

Now I do understand some people are question point activity wise (neomon, spitfire) or haven't played before (Vrji), so if you're willing to play, please confirm again and there's some people are looking to manage (James+Euph), (Jab), and if hypothetically they get picked that leaves 6 teams with no DPP, and there's just enough from the people that say yes and that ignoring the fact that maybe some people are willing to learn.

On the other hand, having an exact number of players as teams is dangerous and specially if one doesn't signup incase something happens, or even a team grabbing two, plus another negative is the burden that it cause on funds and whatsoever. Plus, some people on that list can also go to other gens, specially reinforce BW and SM2.
for this part all the dpp people including ink and fan have found success in other gens, besides spitfire i guess but they are a sign up question mark anyway, and neomon is not very active but has found success in old gens and ss in the distant past. james and euph are managing together and if dpp is in euph would dpp and james would bw/sm. with no dpp euphonos licherally made classic finals so hes capable of playing multigen, sm, and oras. yami and jabiru both found success last pl playing ss and sm respectively. urf went 4-1 in ss last pl, qualled and is still in oraslt playoffs, and has shown willingness to play bw. ink and fan have both played sm in team tours and were around during cg sm, and fan is an oras player as well.
On SM2 -

Yea, it was my idea to remove SM2 for Multigen to reach a compromise between both parties. I frankly do not think that SM2 deserve two slots. SM has a high entry barrier so the amount of newcomers wiling to learn SM is going down, and other people are either moving away from Pokemon or branching to other slots. I'm gonna utilize PL as an example of SM cause in WC there's restrictions even though in WC the SM2 slot was way worse.

TheShadowClaw + Lancer/Joker
Landon + frostyicelad/Rosa
Rumia+ Elo Bandit/Boat
Satanic Beast + Freddy Kyogre
Kentari + Close/Jabiru/XSTATIC COLD/pqs
Downcoming3 + Jamez/Grain2Sel/Tol/Leru
Squirtell + lmni/Felucia/SoulWind
LBDC + ACII/Bopher

Team 1: TSC hasn't been around for a while so no clue if they're going to play, Lancer and Joker can perfectly branch out to other gens, Lancer can go to ORAS and Joker can go to SS/BW/ORAS so removing SM2 has a loss of 0 players.
Team 2: Landon perfectly fits into SM1. Frosty has done bad in the past so SM2 isn't competitive, idk where he goes though. Rosa had to fill SM2 due to frosty failing to win some weeks and Rosa can go anywhere. Loss: Frosty
Team 3: Rumia and Boat are one trick SM pony so its fair. Boat might venture to DPP or SS? Bandit can go ORAS. This team has okay SM1 and SM2. Loss: Unclear, probably none.
Team 4: Satanic Beast is has been a beast in SM, so easily SM1. Freddy Kyogre was stuck in SM2 after not playing for long but his games weren't particularly competitive and he can branch out to BW as he's a council member
Team 5: Broken team ;) Had to shuffle a bit around SM. Kentari, XSC, Close are both SM1 worthy, Jabiru had to pick it up to fill up though I think he'd prefer going into DPP and if no DPP SM2 is fair. Close likes MG/SS more so not sure here but I'll count him. Pqs been doing pretty bad at SM for past team tours, slot him SS honestly. Loss: 0
Team 6: DC3 quit, Jamez would rather go MG/DPP/BW, G2S did bad, Tol did bad, Leru was only in one slot to cover the lacking SM2 slot. Loss: tol only since Leru can be fed in any slot. Loss: Tol. G2s hasn't been seen in a while
Team 7: Squirtell SM1. Lmni banned, Felucia won't be playing, SW idk if they're playing but can venture in old gens. Loss: 0
Team 8: LBDC SM1, ACii Banned, Bopher can venture in other gens. Loss: 0

SM1 pool: TSC, Landon, Rumia, Satanic Beast, Kentari, XSC, Squirtell, LBDC. Tentatively Close (idk if he wants to play SM) and Boat. So we have 9 SM1 slots which will force competitive games.
SM2 pool: Lancer, Joker, Frosty, Rosa, Bandit, Jabiru, G2s, Tol, Leru, Bopher.

As we can see from added names, and I don't mean to hurt anyone but SM2 seems pretty lackluster and locking the best SMers into one slot will bring more competitive gaming into that slot, plus I believe most SM2 players can go into any other gen and do better except a few names. Plus that lackluster slot was worse in WC where teams had to slot Arai and Xander into SM2 because they had no other "mainer" to do so. And I believe a lot of "non mainers" don't mind playing other slots, correct me if I'm wrong. So I believe removing SM2 gives us a better draft since it reinforces a lot of old gens slots specifically BW, and ORAS, and maybe some people from SM2 will learn DPP.

However, if people think SM2 deserves another chance and has the numbers / competitive factor then I'm open to hear other opinions.

Once again, I'm ready to listen to opposing opinions and please do write so we can try and cater to as many people as we can.
but then when you look here my opinion is that the sm2 players are less flexible and worse overall than the dpp players mentioned above, and from what i said earlier removing dpp and having the players that play it move to other gens it helps with the issue of the sm2 pool being middling. deg already went through the versatility and the middling players in sm2 so i wont rehash it, but i just think its better for the overall competition of the tour that the dpp mains are the ones to have to move to other gens than the sm2 players. another big point is that sm is also a more liked gen than dpp so its easier to figure out who is subbing in there. there have been many posts about discontent about dpp and people having to sub in who dont like it regardless of shaymin vs no shaymin (i will address state of the tier later) to where this should need to be a discussion.

I'm not a big fan of the dpp player pricing argument but i'll address it a little to talk about this point, see potatos post directly above mine for the tl;dr of that argument, his post is quite good and i agree.
However, if there's a playerpool, and people that are willing to play DPP and don't want to migrate to another slot then I don't see why we should take away that possibility away from them, example people like SuperMemeBroz and Sanshokuinsumireko have stated their desire to learn DPP.
its true that there are a few people who are interested in dpp but circling back to my first point is a drafting pool of spitfire (might not sign up), neomon, PA, Yami, Urfgurgle, Sansho not in bw, 413x, and SMBZ really better than having sm 2 currently + dpp players that can play it? discounting ink and fan of course. and thats before having to consider who to sub in if one of those slots go badly for the 6 teams that dont have dpp mainer managers.
Plus, maybe giving DPP a chance after the Shaymin ban will be worth it?
ive looked at dpp post shaymin ban. people like going wah wah mechanics and stuff but i wont mention those here beyond this point. shaymin 100% made building it easier but the tier still has all of its core issues. too many of the top mons in this tier have too many sets. when i say top mons in this context i mean tyranitar, cresselia, registeel, zapdos, raikou, infernape, jirachi, suicune, kingdra, dragonite. Dude i just listed 10 mons LOL cmon. all these mons are a setguessing nightmare to play against with more ttar sets than just chople popping up with the exception of registeel. ttar is arguably the healthiest of these mons that has a variety of counters in water, grass, fighting, steel, and ground types for example, but something like dd kingdra licherally loses to taunt counter ttar. cress forces ttar that has specific evs or a set that is not chople counter which all have massive opportunity cost not to lose to specs grass knot, registeel, or some bad dark type like honchkrow (lol) or weavile. you can also rely on critical hits and spdef drops ofc. registeel is one of the easier mons to deal with so its chill. exploitable and just gets crit too much. the two electrics basically force tyranitar or rhyperior in order to reliably beat them, registeel and cress are crit baits, nape can defeat zap but lose to raik depending on the set. zapdos can literally beat raikou in this day and age btw because you dont have to run specs hp flying to defeat shaymin anymore, explore its different sets. nape is a mon that actually beats everything besides some water types cress and dnite with the right set and its hard to read on preview if done well, similar to mew in bw, so a mon like dnite/cress or a water is forced to reliably beat nape. ill mention at this point that you dont have to reliably beat everything but id say most people like to do that. jirachi actually flinches the entire tier with scarf its hilarious LMAO and the other sets are fantastic surprises, watch eblurbs games from dpp 1v1 no johns where hes farming with my teams all the way back to the classic he won. kingdra got a buff from shaymin being banned but its damage output is still bad and disable 80% accuracy is bad. dnite gets a slight buff as well from the shaymin ban but still has all its issues in that it loses to most of the top tiers. and finally the best grass type got banned congrats, suicune is actually cbt to deal with now. im not kidding when i say this but almost all of the current dpp samples lose to one of suicunes three sets that i consider good and one move variation (euphs has sub tox zap which technically wins but has to low key set guess. the tangrowth one 50/50s because of double tect). im not revealing them bc i gotta save some tech for myself since dpp is gonna be in i guess.

god damn that paragraph was long LOL but yeah the same issues of too many top tiers with too many sets are still present but with another demon in suicune to have to account for now. and when you look at future tiering actions banning one of those mons that i mentioned just makes all the other ones stronger, for example i will never allow ttar to be banned because all the electrics are gonna have to go immediately after and we're playing dpp 1v1 uu then. the balance of the tier is just too fragile, problems will just keep coming up. you can say im talking in hypotheticals but you also probably dont play the tier.

if dpp really has to stay because of its 3/4 defenders, then the choice between multigen>sm2 or the status quo is a hard one, regardless of how much i like multigen, i will have to think more.

oh also multigen in wc and dpp in pl is ungood imo. rosas argument of wc being the populist tour or whatever and pl being the competitive one is cool and all until you point out that multigen is both more popular and more competitive than dpp so... yeah. if anything multigen in pl dpp in wc. its easier for teams to field someone in dpp than in multigen because multigen is far harder to just throw someone in if you dont have someone for it.

TL;DR removing dpp for multigen is better than removing sm2 for the competitive integrity of the tour. dpp is better but still has its same issues and i dont see more development making it better. multigen in pl and dpp in wc is an option.
 
Last edited:
After witnessing multiple days of this discussion, I’m in favor of cutting dpp for multigen. For me the 2 main reasons for this are
- the lack of players, there’s clearly not enough dpp players for each team, unless we want to start slotting inexperienced dpp players or unproven dpp players which shouldn’t be the case for any tier in my opinion. This makes the tour uncompetitive. With me and euph managing, and jabiru, this leaves the dpp pool for the rest of the 6 teams that would need a dpp player very small.

the other reason being
The very dominant support for dpp to be cut for multigen. Overall this community dislikes dpp which is fair. Forcing a slot that the majority of the community is against is bad for the community and the tour in my opinion. There is also a clear majority of people that would like to see multigen played over dpp. And multigen has the players to support the slot as well, probably even becoming one of the most competitive slots, if not the most competitive slot in the tour.

Short post since I’m in school but overall, cut dpp for multigen. Sm 2 should also stay
 

Elo Bandit

youtube.com/ EloBandit
is a Community Contributor
Re: SM2
Rosa: ...Dropping the 2nd SM slot instead. This was an idea brought up amidst our discussions that both of us feel could be a solid alternative. With the SM metagame being mostly stagnant beyond a couple new developments after becoming an old gen as well as a growing concern that the tier feels inaccessible to newer players, it stands to reason that we consider cutting back to just 1 slot. This option gives both sides what they want while not taking too much away from SM that it couldn't already accomplish with 1 slot.
The SM metagame hit a big slowdown when the generation ended in 2019. Without a ladder, metagame development is limited to room tours, Discord tours, SM Cup, and two slots in two major team tours. Dropping a slot will not help the issue of a somewhat stagnating meta.

The accessibility argument could be a reasonable concern if we didn't already have way more SM players than available SM slots. You don't need to train a 3k draft in SM from scratch, you've already got around fifty SM mains lined up hoping to play SM2. Compare this to the literal five people who are both willing and able to start DPP.
DEG: ...remove SM2 for Multigen to reach a compromise between both parties. I frankly do not think that SM2 deserve two slots. SM has a high entry barrier so the amount of newcomers wiling to learn SM is going down, and other people are either moving away from Pokemon or branching to other slots.
If only someone had already put together an extensive set of tutorials that could help newcomers overcome the initial barrier of entry to SM 1v1.

ORAS deserved two slots until gen 8. I expect to see that precedent followed. SM2 should be removed when gen 9 arrives - not before.
DEG: ...SM2 seems pretty lackluster and locking the best SMers into one slot will bring more competitive gaming into that slot
The top 8 SM players won't change if SM2 is dropped; the SM1 pool will see no competitive benefit from its removal.
From a building, competing, and spectating standpoint, SM2 is anything but lackluster. The player pool is deep and support is easy to find. Some of the most exciting matches happen in this slot since people have slightly more freedom to innovate and take risks compared to the Super Serious SM1.
DEG: ...So I believe removing SM2 gives us a better draft since it reinforces a lot of old gens slots specifically BW, and ORAS, and maybe some people from SM2 will learn DPP.
SM mains don't want to play BW, ORAS, or DPP, we want to play SM. 1 slot is simply not enough for the comparatively huge SM playerbase.
DEG: ...so we can try and cater to as many people as we can.
Then cater to the many instead of the few.

Others have already pointed out the numerous issues with DPP and the reasons for its unpopularity. The best reason to keep it is... it might get better?

Truly, at this point I see DPP the same way I see ADV, GSC, and RBY 1v1. There's nothing these old gens can do in terms of bans or meta development that will save them from being strictly less competitive (and ultimately, less popular) than newer generations.

Multigen is fun, competitive, and a better option than DPP for the people playing in this tour. However, I would not support its inclusion at the expense of SM2, which should absolutely remain in both Premiere League and World Cup.
 

Trashuny

Banned deucer.
Okay, what? The suggestion of replacing the second Gen 7 slot just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Not only is gen 4 on a ticking timebomb when it comes to the next generation, but the playerbase has time and time again shown that they can easily find success in other tiers, something I have not seen an incredible amount of for gen 7. Those two reasons are the main reasons why I think removing gen 4 would be an easy process. I like multigen as much as anyone else who has supported it in the thread, but it was brought up as a replacement for gen 4 after all. First it wasn’t a good enough replacement, now it’s too good of a tier to replace gen 4?

The people speaking out and defending gen 4 in this thread are… a minority of a minority. Stable, zio, Synonimous, crucify, Close and I have all played the tier recently and want to see it gone. The few people defending it are Itchyy (I haven’t seen them play the tier, honestly), Euphonos (suggested… the remakes as a replacement) and Jabiru. Do we need a unanimous agreement to get something done? What were we expecting? Then gen 4 players barely care about defending their tier, which leads me to think it does not have a big enough playerbase.

So that leads to my proposed solutions. My first is to just remove gen 4 entirely for multigen in team tournaments. The tier “dying” is not a big problem when we have a good replacement (we will in gen 9 regardless). But, if for some godforsaken reason we just do not have the green light to do that despite almost the entire community supporting multigen, or really anything over gen 4 over and over, there’s still things we can do. My second proposal is to definitively remove gen 4 in its entirety for multigen in World Cup. Finding gen 4 players is already hard enough, but when you put geographical limits on things, it really becomes quite difficult. At first glance, US West, my region seemed to have 3 players who played gen 4 in the 1v1pl. Synonimous, Gym Socks, and I. However, none of us wanted to play it, so we had to put in Morgan/Kebia in there, a 2v2 player who honestly just did not care much about the tournament. They were a nice person & played fine, and it’s okay they weren’t extremely invested in a Pokémon tournament, but I’ve seen people on the bench care more, truthfully. It does not make sense to have multigen replace the second gen 7 slot, and then not have gen 4 in World Cup.

My third proposal is to base Gen 4 or multigen off of signups. If we can get a sizable amount of gen 4 players to sign up, then hopefully outsiders who don’t like the tier don’t have to play it. But if we get a minimal amount of proven gen 4 players signing up, the problems from past team tournaments will just repeat themselves after gen 4 defenders say they won’t. I wanted to play an old generation PU in the PU World Cup, so I messaged the manager of US West (my region) a few days before signups ended, and he unfortunately told me US West didn’t have enough signups, so they merged with another team who wouldn’t be taking many US West people, because they didn’t plan to before they knew they had to merge. This is how things should be handled; adjusted to who actually is signing up. We should use actual data to make educated decisions. If enough gen 4 players is deemed, they can play it. If not, we should something else; everyone hates gen 4 after all, including many former players, there is really no reason to keep it around if nobody is stepping up to play it. We can use this upcoming 1v1pl to make a definitive call about the future of gen 4.

This should be about gen 4 being replaced by multigen. It was never about anything else. My second and third proposal can and should go together.
 
I've been thinking very hard about how to write this without sounding like a broken clock or repeating the myriad of things that have already been said before. It's somewhat obvious that my stance is currently that I care more to see dpp out of the tournament than I care about multigen being added, so however many lines of explanations and opinions I give will not really add anything to the current argument. Instead, to really progress this conversation and try to finally reach a conclusion, I will do what I have always done best: cut the workarounds. The current discussion of sm2 vs dpp is where it is at because of the stalemate that was reached between DEG and Rosa, with DEG being the one in favor of removing DPP and Rosa being the one in favor of maintaining the status quo. So from this point on, Rosa, this post will be directed towards you specifically, with the hopes that by the end of this post we will both be on the same page.


- Bo1o5 is janky for multiple reasons; I don't really have much experience in it myself, but constantly switching between gens for the entire series seems kinda noncompetitive (especially in a team tour setting where you really need to reserve your heavy hitters for the more important slots), not to mention it'd be kinda weird having DPP be involved when the proper DPP slot itself is gone. The biggest concern here, imo, is that what you gain from the potential removal of DPP simply does not meet what is demanded as it pertains to a Bo1o5 multigen. For a format like this, there's really not much reason not to just toss in a sub with sample teams and have them use !pick and probably still win due to how wildly different the meta for each game will be from the last.
Starting off with your initial doubts on MG as a format, it is very fair, from an outsider perspective, to find the format in itself weird or unappealing; I came up with the format in MGS1 and I really never thought it could ever fare competitively, it was a for fun format meant to allow people to play less games so the tournament would have more signups from people who didnt want to put a lot of time into it, and Bo3o5 wouldn't really allow that. But it delivered, it was extremely fun and extremely competitive, and you can see so especially from playing it. I received multiple complaints from outside sources by people who hadn't played the format and almost all of them changed opinion when they ended up trying it. I think the outsider outlook on the format itself is very similar to how people view 1v1 in its entirety before even attempting to play it in the first place. In my opinion it is necessary to play it to form an unbiased opinion of it, and in absence of that, it is not bad to put your faith into the players that did play it.
On the second point, you are very correct. Involving DPP is weird, I agree, it was my very first concern when I saw the proposal to replace DPP with MG; I've seen various people say that a single dpp slot "is no big deal" or that "it still gives the slot representation" or that "the format isnt supposed to represent the tiers in the tournament". The very raw reality of the facts is that there strictly is no better alternative. if there was a way to replace DPP in MG, it would be done, but there isn't, and as far as I see it, MG with DPP is better than no multigen, and it is better than having 5 DPP games.
The concern on the 3rd point is valid but it routes back to the same outsider belief other players have about 1v1 in general; the truth of the matter is that it simply does not work, sorta. It's not a thing exclusive to multigen, every tier suffers from the problem of it ultimately being a game of picking and predicting, so any player with good teams at hand can outpick another player. The silver lining here is that it is extremely difficult and improbable. At the end of the day you're not going in blind, all the players that would play the multigen tier have past histories in almost all of the gens, so you do have the resources at hand for adequate prep, and even if you were to toss in a sub, they would still be fed by the same people, and wouldn't pick nearly as well as the starter themselves.


Starting off, the main issue that I have with canning DPP from team tours (PL especially) is that you're basically gutting any chance that the meta has to properly develop. When we especially consider that this action is mainly being considered because DPP is in a rough state right now, we have to take into consideration that the removal of these opportunities to develop DPP, in addition to the removal of the increased attention DPP gets as a metagame during team tours, would ultimately result in DPP facing a lot more challenges in getting out of that rough state, as well as the greater community not being able (or inclined) to see any potential change for the better. This would ultimately end up creating a feedback loop of DPP continuing to be hated and excluded from team tours as a result, unless you can get some major changes coming about from Classic and other sporadic individual tours, which are generally a lot more limited in the scope of meta development.
Onto your second post, it's true. Yeah, despite many trying to deny it for self interest, it is indeed true that removing DPP from PL would bring it to probably not be represented in WC, and thus lose most of the chances it has at developing. Even a tier like ADV which keeps struggling to stay alive through the few passionate players it has is miles and miles and miles away from the kind of development it would go through if it were in a team tournament. The Shaymin ban was a direct consequence of other bans that had happened in the past team tournament and is also a decision that was accelerated by the potential fate of DPP as a whole. But this is where I point back at crucify's post above, and where I want to add on to what he already said. The tier in itself is not in a state where it can be fixed by metagame development or by a ban or two. It's a big misconception regarding DPP, but in reality the big problem with DPP is the sheer potential of every singular good Pokemon, the amounts of things each mon can beat and how borderline impossible it is to accurately setguess mons in the tier; and banning Pokemon at the top of the metagame does but remove mons from the pool that can actually cover the other metagame threats. Shaymin was definitely broken, but removing it from the metagame removes a tool that allows you to cover many metagame threats and gives you a bit of breathing space in the other two slots. Tyranitar becomes much harder to deal with and forces you to run different grass/water types that are less good and force your hand to run other broken pokemon in the remaining slots. It also forces into Pokemon that are less reliable and can't beat all the ttar sets, widening the threat to more pokemon slots. If you are to ban Cresselia right now then mons like Infernape or Dragonite become insanely difficult to deal with properly, and as bans and bans go on other mons start to resurface: Kingdra, that was once thought to be one of the strongest mons in the metagame loses a lot of hard counters between Togekiss Shaymin Cresselia and becomes extremely dominant over top tier Pokemon like Tyranitar, Infernape and Dragonite that lose to it, and as a Water Dragon type with its only one weakness and its multitude of sets, it becomes very difficult to deal with in a reliable manner. I'm not saying Shaymin ban is a bad thing, I'd obviously lie if I said it makes it worse, it is definitely better than what it was before, but as zio put it, "it's like a new coat of paint on a piece of shit". You can try, as Boat suggested, to keep banning things until the metagame is playable, but it's a cycle of bans and development into bans and other developments that would take literal years, and even then, it still wouldn't be a good metagame, just a playable one. Bandit put it best, dpp is as playable as the lowest 3 generations are playable, it will simply never reach the same threshold of competitiveness the other generations have. The crux of this discourse, for me, is that DPP is a terrible metagame right now, and it will remain a terrible metagame no matter how much you mess with it. No amount of time and effort and resources will bring it to a state where the majority of people like it. One of the major points is that very close to the chopping block is Tyranitar, a mon that for however much it can, is currently keeping together the metagame as a glue, and the tier would easily fall apart without ttar to centralize it. DPP is stuck, and I think it would not be fair to force ourselves to attempt to solve this potentially unsolvable metagame by forcing many people to put up with it for the entirety of PL, and many other teamtours to come.

Next, we came to a bit of an impasse with regards to the impact of community support on PL, as well as WC by proxy, as a team tournament. My main thought here was that community support should namely be a more viable metric for decision making when it comes to WC, as it is a tournament intentionally designed around the community, in addition to multiple of the grievances against DPP brought up here applying more notably to WC, where your options for drafting are limited from everyone in each meta's pools of players to just whoever's nearby. As for PL, we couldn't really reach an agreement as to what extent community support should matter in terms of decision making.
I think we should refrain from talking about WC until WC comes. Taking things one step at a time and seeing where it brings, we cannot make promises for wc before seeing what PL awaits, no one can foresee what is gonna happen. We have had format discussions for basically every iteration of both PL and WC even when the tiers remained the same, it is obvious that we will have to discuss the WC format when WC6 comes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Lastly, there were concerns about the precedent that a move like this would set. While changes to slots are nothing new in 1v1's team tournament history, with the removal of 1v1 UU after PL2, the removal of 2v2 after PL3, and the removal of the 2nd ORAS slot as well as the 4th current gen slot after moving to gen 8, a move like this would be the first time a properly developed 1v1 metagame gets removed from team tournaments in its entirety (ie being left with no slots at all). While a slotting squeeze may have been inevitable if we weren't at 10 slot size by gen 9, it is generally more preferable that these decisions be made out of such necessity, rather than arbitrarily preemptively axing a tier before gen 9 is even hinted at by Gamefreak. Beyond just that, setting the precedent of changing slots around mid-gen via community support sets the standard of having these discussions each time a team tour comes around, which is reminiscent of the perennial 2v2 vs DPP discussions that would come around as soon as the tournament discussion threads were posted throughout SM's time as the current generation, which generally resulted in more community splintering than anything of benefit.
I don't agree with slotting changes having to be made due to necessity, actually, the opposite. A format change coming out of sheer necessity reaches compromises due to limitations, while a format change thanks to community request actually contributes to the competitivity of the tournament. The concern about precedent is fair, but it's an exaggerated worry: at the end of the day any change to the status quo is extremely difficult, as shown. Precedent alone will never bring to any changes, it's not something you can simply exploit, especially when it comes to situations of this kind. Future discussion about DPP vs MG vs SM2 and any other slotting changes will come no matter what the outcome is, and they are welcomed, since they help us reach a majorly accepted status quo. Once the impending changes or no changes settle in, it will be almost impossible to change them again, whether it is to replace mg back with dpp or attempt to replace dpp with mg again, no matter the amount of precedent that is set.

Moving on, we now have our alternatives:
  • Canning DPP in only WC. As I mentioned above, WC teams face a lot tighter of a squeeze when it comes to getting someone to handle DPP (really all the oldgens in general) as a result of only being able to draft nearby players. Additionally, as a tournament whose format is designed specifically around the community and its population, it makes more sense that decisions be made by popular agreement here.
  • Dropping the 2nd SM slot instead. This was an idea brought up amidst our discussions that both of us feel could be a solid alternative. With the SM metagame being mostly stagnant beyond a couple new developments after becoming an old gen as well as a growing concern that the tier feels inaccessible to newer players, it stands to reason that we consider cutting back to just 1 slot. This option gives both sides what they want while not taking too much away from SM that it couldn't already accomplish with 1 slot.
When it comes to the decision between these two choices, I feel like the decision to axe DPP only in WC is simply a matter of trying to delay the issue. As I've mentioned, WC decisions should come when WC comes, but right now people want to remove DPP from PL, WC is its different monster that we'll have to deal with when the time comes.
Removal of SM2 is something I do not agree with, since, how I've stated before, I care more about the removal of DPP than the addition of MG itself. SM2 in itself has more than enough players to feed the slot and SM in itself is a great gen with no issues. Actually, the decision to remove DPP instead of SM2 gets the DPP players moving to other slots, and people like Jabiru and Jamez (and even Fan or Ink if we wanna count them) would improve the SM2 pool, while the opposite would not work.
 
Now I've read up on this thread, I agree with the opinion with just nuking DPP, it's really not worth it to have months and years of forcing a dogshit tier into teamtours with no concrete plan. I'd still try to play in PL even without DPP and so would every other person that said they would DPP in the PM.
I guess that this way the meta wont ever properly develop again, but there's always other ways and those would be the preferred options in this case. We would DPP itt just to be right back to 0 after, and then we start again with the next official tour and I don't think people will put up with that for very long
 
I try and stay out of tournament policy discussions because I usually have friends on each side of the debate, which is more often than not a difference of opinion between something echoing "maintaining competitiveness and tour integrity" and the more fan-favorite, fun argument. usually the number of people on either end will be somewhat balanced, and both sides have sufficient ammunition to argue their point.

this is not the case here.
the support in favor of keeping dpp as a format this pl is quite literally one 1v1 td and a handful of dpp mainers. I could count the number of people who want dpp over multigen in pl on one hand.
the supporters of multigen>dpp span every single gen and includes hosts, managers, nearly every successful player, the other 1v1 td, and an enormous portion of the community. I hardly need to repeat every post in this thread, but there are anecdotes after anecdotes from people who actually play the tier about how dpp is uncompetitive and doesn't have the playerbase to warrant spot in this premier league. this overwhelmingly popular and well-researched argument is being shot down by essentially a single user with very little recent experience in the tier citing precedent from tours that have no bearing on 1v1.

it's delusional to refuse this proposal for the self-proclaimed "competitiveness of the tour" when it is profoundly clear from almost every active player that the opposite is actually true. rejecting this proposal solely to conserve a broken tier is ridiculous, and strawmanning sm2 to deflect is nothing short of absurd. because this is indicative of how proposals to official 1v1 tours will be handled in the future, if dpp remains in pl 6 I will not be participating in any capacity.

-pyramid king
 
Last edited:

The Official Glyx

Banned deucer.
After doing a lot of research and a lot more thinking and talking to people on the matter, I've hopefully come to at least a semblance of a conclusion on where my stance lies.

Firstly, I do find it unfortunate that this discussion has been tainted with misleading arguments, so to begin with, let's address those:
1. "DPP Pricing"

This one's a nice easy low hanging fruit to start with that even the opposing side can't completely agree on. Stable's post introduces the idea that DPP prices are generally higher than other tiers (specifically comparing to the prices of the Bo7 slot), and from there it became somewhat of a common agreement that DPP prices are "inflated". This argument was created using the draft prices payed for each player, as well as the players who actually went into the corresponding DPP and Bo7 slots. Firstly, these are two aspects that clash by design, as managers cannot know with 100% confidence what slot every player will end up in before the Rounds have even begun (particularly when comparing Bo7 to SS1 and 2); granted, while players like Euphonos, LBDC, Nalei, and etc can be discerned as historically one tier players, they still remain the exception rather than the norm. Secondly, this is also ignoring how auction pricing generally works; if you looked at the overall daft prices that Stable pulled this data from, you would notice how a lot of the top prices aren't actually heavily DPP influenced, but rather more geared towards SS/SM/players who can do more than one tier. If you can't be asked to click the hyperlink, here's a sampling of the 25 highest prices from last PL:
  1. DenisTheMenace 20500
  2. dogknees 19000
  3. Nalei 18500
  4. Close 18500
  5. Akumajou 18500
  6. XSTATIC COLD 18000
  7. TheShadowClaw 18000
  8. Squirtell 1v1 18000
  9. smely socks 18000
  10. Inkreativ 17500
  11. 187 Fan 17500
  12. LBDC 17000
  13. Synonimous 17000
  14. Potatochan 17000
  15. SiceXV 15000
  16. Stable 15000
  17. Gym Socks! 15000
  18. Satanic Beast 14500
  19. crucify 13500
  20. LRXC 13500
  21. Rosa 13000
  22. zio 13000
  23. HereComesTeamCharm! 11000
  24. UBERLandon21 12000
  25. Sanshokuinsumireko 11500
While Stable's argument is framed around who actually went into the DPP and Bo7 slots, the reality of the matter is that that isn't how team tournaments work. You don't just pay for people to go in and play games and that's it, you pay for their expertise in each of their corresponding tiers, since having a strong core for your team is another important aspect of building a team beyond just who you have pressing buttons. For this reason, you can hopefully agree that someone like Potatochan was a strong pickup for the SS (and also ORAS!) core of the Porygons, even if he only actually played BW throughout the duration of the tournament. For this reason, it makes sense for players like Inkreativ, 187 Fan, Synonimous, and Gym Socks to go high, since even though they played mostly DPP for the duration of the tour, they all still have expertise in multiple tiers that helps contribute a lot more beyond just DPP to their teams. Comparatively, you have a player like Jabiru who was mostly seen at the time as a single-tier DPP player going for only 9500, which only furthers the point I'm trying to make. The same can be said for other similar single-tier players like OM (10k), Kentari, lmni 1v1, Tol, Dc3 (9k), tears (8k), Adela (7.5k), and etc etc. The only exceptions to this are players of particularly high talent in their given tier, to which a higher price is warranted (Denis, Nalei, TheShadowClaw, Squirtell, LBDC, etc). So, to sum up the point, the narrative that DPP prices are "inflated" in relation to other tiers is simply, unequivocally false.

2. "The Lack of a DPP Pool"

A similar argument perpetuated by Stable in the same post where he then attempted to use the "pricing" argument to explain why the DPP Pool is so dire. Afterwards, he then makes the implication that only people with "results" can be considered "in the pool", as it pertains to DPP. While I personally don't think this argument is entirely in touch with reality (especially when looking at the state of BW and ORAS by comparison), let's entertain it for the sake of giving it the benefit of the doubt. Starting off, how do people get "results"? The main ways naturally would be either team tour performance, doing well in trophy tours, doing well in unofficials, or otherwise directly investing your time in learning/developing a tier to the extent that people will have to acknowledge your proficiency in that tier. To that extent, as it pertains to DPP, we are left with a pool of players looking like this:
(For the sake of avoiding redundancy, names of people who were already included prior will not be repeated)
(Certain players who would otherwise qualify for this list have also been removed as a result of them outwardly stating they will not play DPP in team tours)
((For any of these who qualify under multiple methods, I didn't label all of their DPP achievements because I cba))

- Did well in Classic DPP:
Vrji (V Quarters)
Itchy (V Quarters)
HCTC (V Semis)
Dj Breloominati (V Finals, IV Quarters)
Euphonos (V Winner)
Monsareeasy (IV Quarters)
eblurb (IV Classic Winner)
Krytocon (IV Quarters)
Chickenpie2 (IV Finals)

- Did well in World Cup
PA (V 2-1)
Yami (V 2-1)
Jabiru (IV 2-1)

- Did well in Premier League
Ren (GL Volkner) (IV 2-2)
Jordy (IV 2-0)

- Did well in unofficials
The only DPP unofficial we've had is still ongoing, though there are a fair number of new names here: link

- Vested interest in DPP
Urfgurgle
413x

- Not 100% sure about signing up
Inkreativ
187 Fan

- Would otherwise qualify for this list but have stated their disdain of DPP/desire for it to be dropped
Trashuny (PLV 4-2)
Zio (PLV 3-1)
Stable (PLV 2-2)
Synonimous (PLIV 4-4)
neomon (WCV 2-2)
crucify (WCV 1-0)
Jamez (CV Winner)
Elo Bandit (CV DPP Semis)
Close (CIV DPP Winner)
Waylaid (CIV DPP Semis)
pqs (CIV Quarters)
Gym Socks (Has built DPP teams)
While it would certainly be fair to make the case that certain players like HCTC, Monsareeasy, Krytocon, Jordy, Inkreativ, and etc all shouldn't count for one reason or another, it's pretty clear that regardless of how you cut it, there is an actual pool for DPP that's greater than zero or the single digit number of people that posts like Stable's would lead you on to believe. Factoring in other players new to DPP who are supposedly interested in picking up the tier, like SMB and Sansho, makes this number become even greater. Whether or not this pool of players with "results" is sufficient to support DPP as a slot is something you can decide for yourself.

Additionally, subjective as it may be, I do still believe DPP as a tier better upholds the intent behind Premier League as a tournament. If we want to uphold the idea of Premier League being the more competitive of our team tournaments, I think it only makes sense that we keep the formats where we're most likely to see the highest levels of competition, to which competition in DPP has always been high, and even Multigen has a lot of prominent players suggesting they'd be interested in giving it a try. Comparatively, the competition as it pertains to the SM2 slot is just not there. While there are undoubtedly more people who care about SM as a whole, the 2nd slot just hasn't really showcased that supposed interest in it, and to that extent, I think it is a safe argument to make that DPP brings more to the tour in terms of competitiveness than however much of a laundry list of inactive players, non-SM players, and players more suited to SM1 or other tiers that the SM2 slot has going for it.

Ultimately, I simply dislike the notion of a metagame having momentary problems being something that could end up severely tanking its ability to deal with those problems down the road. If DPP needs to go through a major wave of bans in order to be enjoyable, then I can only see its removal forcing it to take exponentially longer to do so as a result. Similarly, I also really don't wanna have to have these kinds of discussions every time a team tournament comes around-

However, I do understand people's concerns. In talking to people, I've gotten an understanding that the issues presented against DPP are faced by more than just that one tier, and even in formulating many of my own arguments, it was hard to avoid setting the precedent for removing BW and ORAS for similar reasons down the line. With this acknowledgment, I realized that having to tiptoe this much just to preserve one tier when multiple others are also poised to struggle for the same reasons in the not-so-distant future was an effort in vain (especially if gen 9 comes and we aren't at 10 slot size still). With that in mind, I shall be abstaining on the matter of DPP and will allow the community to decide what tiers they wish to have in the coming Premier League. If my thoughts may have helped anyone change their mind, I am still open to dropping SM2 instead of DPP, but regardless of how that concludes, I am willing to accept whatever outcome may occur.
 

Euphonos

inanod ng mga luha; damdamin ay lumaya.
is a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnus
People can attest that I, one of the players who enjoyed the DPP 1v1 metagame the most, have proficiencies in other generations. Sure, 1v1 Classic Finals is a huge testament to it, but such proficiencies don't come from me alone. So, allow me to ask you a question to any player / aspiring manager around here: [say, if I were not to run as manager in 1v1PL,] how much will you give in making me pick up a 1v1 metagame the way I picked up DPP 1v1? I can attest Elo Bandit being the most committed since he's the one I sought the most help since my Classic run; otherwise, I don't see anyone else (apart from Dj Breloominati♬ who is dedicated enough to make me pick up DPP 1v1 in the first place) having that same amount of commitment as Bandit's, unless someone convinces me otherwise.

People saw how uncompetitive DPP 1v1 is. Wow, is this the reason why DEG got me into playing DPP 1v1 for Team Asia in the first place: to expose the metagame's uncompetitiveness? Good thing I actually understood the mechanics of DPP in general thanks to my exposure in playing DPP OU as early as Shoddy Battle years, so I dealt with whatever mechanics is lurking in there. I know my match with Trashuny in the last iteration of PL is the most absurd one, but I can't complain because that's the 6.25% chance of critical hits + 2x critical hit damage kicking in! Those luck-based factors are bound to happen so as in the later generations, so learn to deal with it. Oh, wait, isn't it the frustrations you guys have in building teams in the metagame right now with so much tech going on? That's the evolution of the metagame that people get to adapt / find creative ways in dealing with such Pokemon, duh! Jabiru stated in the DPP 1v1 No Johns tour how much nicer building is right now with the Shaymin ban, and I believe it's a step in the right direction!

People saw MultiGen being a tempting option over DPP 1v1. Okay, DPP 1v1 is still there and some people who play DPP 1v1 as their main metagame still gets some value for support; however, if DPP gets axed, what are the chances people will not get to play the tour? Wait, wait, don't bring up that player flexibility right there: case in point again being myself. It's not a matter of a player being flexible in playing that metagame, but it's a matter of that player who will devote 100% to the metagame (s)he likes the most. While I do acknowledge that players will not expect themselves to play DPP for whatever reason they have, I do rebut that don't expect most DPP 1v1 main players to commit to other tiers when they're axed out of 1v1PL VI representation, unless the aspiring manager / player is committed enough to make that person devote 100% to that other metagame. Not to mention, DPP 1v1 is historically prevalent in all previous 1v1PL iterations that it has some value, whether sentimental, competitive, or whatever that is, and regardless of the pool (or the lack thereof), there will be people who will still realize that value.

To conclude, it all boils down to making public the community's overblown disdain of the DPP 1v1 metagame in a rather short notice, and with that, I'm calling out DEG because I believe that should be addressed sooner, ideally in between either the end of 1v1 World Cup V (16th of August) or the end of 1v1 Classic V (6th of November) and the 20th of December when this issue has been brought up, and with involvement of some of the active DPP 1v1 Council to arrive at a resolution at an earlier date. As such, with my hopes of convincing any one here, I would like to close this with my stance that I would rather keep the metagames for 1v1PL VI to be the same all across the board (aka keeping SM2 and DPP - emphasis mine), and let the addition of MultiGen wait for 1v1 World Cup VI.

Since a new generation or a new expansion, or whatever that is, is coming around the corner, I would actually be open to removing DPP 1v1 in the seventh iteration of 1v1PL [or probably in 1v1WC VI for that matter] if the disdain for DPP 1v1 remains justified even after its metagame development - that, I will definitely understand, and eventually concede if things get out of hand.

[While this may be super distant in relation to this issue, this is pretty much the experience I'm putting myself through that it actually felt demotivating and I question myself whether there's still a point continuing when such metagame didn't get officially represented in the first place.]
 
Last edited:

Dj Breloominati♬

born to play, forced to john
is a Top Tiering Contributor
UPL Champion
have read up on this thread and while i agree with most of the sentiment shared, i want to make a special request pertaining the topic at hand - give DPP one more chance this upcoming PL. Despite the general distaste that many share, there are still a few people that really enjoy this tier (myself included), that would hate to see it go. That being said, keeping a tier solely for a select group of people with the majority dissatisfied is not the right way to go about it in any sense -- we want to make this tour fun+competitive for as many people as possible. The support behind multigen is absolutely justified, it is one of the best slots for both the player and spectator, and it definitely deserves its chance

Coming to my proposal : Please consider adding multigen over SM2 for this pl. The points brought up about lack of metagame development if the tier is axed are completely true, and that is sad for anyone who likes this tier. The onus is on us, people who enjoy DPP to make sure that it is playable and as competitive as the remaining slots, and if we fail to make it happen this time, it deserves to get replaced. I am requesting all of the players who would enjoy playing in the second SM slot to consider this sacrifice for this one iteration of the tour, in order to give the future of this tier another chance. Unless something revolutionary happens and there is a big change of heart/interest, i also support the notion of axing DPP from wcop for reasons mentioned already, the main ones being how much metagame knowledge it requires to be consistent, and the general lack of interest.

While the current state of the metagame is not on par with other tiers, i hope we should give it one more chance before cutting it out fully. As stated earlier, if the people who enjoy the tier dont improve the state/outlook of the tier, it doesnt deserve to stay.
 

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
On: The 8th slot in PL

Hello! Firstly, thank you everyone for participating in the discussion, and thank you for being patient as we evaluated many ideas. When we started this discussion we knew that we wouldn't be getting an unanimous support and we knew that we couldn't make everyone happy. However, after reading every post and discussing it, we decided to remove DPP from 1v1 Premier League and replace it with Multigen.

Our first decision was to add Multigen to 1v1PL due to its overwhelming support in this thread. We also had two options, either remove DPP or SM2. While both options have their pros and cons, we decided to remove DPP as there's not enough interest to justify a slot for now specially in a draft based tournament. Drafting DPP from a small pool would actually cause more nuisance than good, and that pool didn't show sign of growing since interest is kinda low, on the other hand SM2 had defendants and people said even if SM2 isn't really in its best competitive position slots can be filled and managers don't have to go out of their way to find an SM2 slot. With that being said, DPP isn't gone forever from team tournaments in 2022 as we will be reevaluating the 8th slot in WC later on.

Hope everyone has a great and fun PL!
 

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Re; 1v1LT Playoffs format.

The 1v1TD have previously advanced the idea of making the 1v1LT Playoffs format a Swiss format replacing the Double Elimination format, which have been met with criticism on the 1v1 discord server, so here we are again doing what we love doing, discussing (in a civil manner) some tournaments policy.

We're here to advance 3 different playoffs format proposition and we will pick what the community supports. The first one being a 3 rounds Swiss into a Single Elimination format, this format was a proposition as it is a Swiss format but is the shorter than a regular Double Elimination round allowing us to fit it easier in the schedule and avoid overlapping as much as we can, but this doesn't give justice to the swiss format. Second, a 5 rounds of Swiss, which flaw is that it will go deeper in WC so if people have no problem with that, then it's a good option. Last, the ol' reliable Double Elimination.

*Single Elim of Swiss is top 8

You will read below my personal opinions / thoughts on the topic and does not represent Rosa.
I think I do like the Swiss format more than Double Elimination and upon reflection I believe 5 Rounds Swiss into Top 8 Single Elimination is better than Double Elimination. Being able to play 5 rounds and qualifying of it rewards consistency better than Double Elimination and it also allows people that lose the first week or two to not lose motivation or give up which sometimes happens in the Double Elimination format. It also puts everyone on an equal level field. A con would be the Single Elimination format that happens after the Swiss format which doesn't forgive the loser whether that player played bad or got haxed, the grace period is only during the Swiss part. So we're trading a format that offers a safety net as long as you're in winners the whole tour, to a format where you have a safety net early but need to be more and more consistent and prepared the more we approach finals.

I don't want to force a format on people, and I don't believe people that don't qualify should so my solution is allowing people that qualify to vote for their preferred format and we'll go with it specially if opinions are divided. This thread will serve as a discussion thread whether you want to voice your opinion cause you want to, or try to convince other users about which format is preferred. We'll read everything that is written and we'll form a conclusion before the playoffs phase of LT, but the sooner the better of course.
 
Last edited:
I think the format of Ladder Tournament should preferably not get touched. Between all the tournaments we've had over the years ladder tour has consistently remained one of the most competitive and entertaining, with the best players making it furthest into the tour. Other than that, Swiss into Single Elimination sounds like a terrible idea. Double Elimination doesnt exist as a way for players to make insane losers runs, even though that sometimes happens, it's more so a way for players far into the bracket to still be able to win even if they lose one of their matches "early"; Swiss into SE is the opposite, allows you to lose early on but punishes you for losing far into the bracket, which is not ideal. 5 rounds of swiss is barely any different: At its core you are simply spending 5 rounds to get through round 1, and the rest of the tour is just single elim, it closes the margin of error even more which is the opposite of what any tour should do.
Also, tournament duration at schedule made is not something that should ever affect the format of the tour. You can count the people that are actually affected by the overlap on the fingers on one hand, its not a big deal at all.

Keep Double Elimination
 
Hi, I am here to say why I think there should be no change in the current LT format.

Double elimination is an excellent format for LT because it keeps the tournament competitive and exciting throughout. In a bracket with only 16 players making a deep run after being eliminated in any position is pretty realistic. Every LT this far has worked quite well with double elim as its format and I don't really see a reason to change it. Beyond that, I see issues with swiss as a format for LT. One of my main issues is that it goes to a somewhat skewed single elim bracket. If it were to be 3 rounds of swiss, both 3-0 and 2-1 players will be eliminated in bracket after one loss which really makes me question how much sandbagging there will be in the last round of swiss because there is no reason to shoot for the 3-0. Single elim is also bad and leads to lamer tours. I don't think 3 or 5 swiss rounds really matters, both don't solve the issue of later swiss rounds being a meme or single elim being bad. 5 does sound miserable tho, 25 teams BEFORE the actual bracket is so fucking bad not to even talk about it overlapping w wcup.
 

SiceXV

Banned deucer.
Changing the format is Mickey Mouse, I ain’t trying to play more games than I have to and somehow can punish me if I win 3 series in a row. LT is where you show dominance, as it probably the most competitive in terms of player pool usually. People should get better and do what tears did 2 years ago and put themselves on the map instead of talking.
 

Trashuny

Banned deucer.
For the reasons outlined above, please do keep the format from last year. I don't really have anything new to add to this conversation besides the fact that I'm a bit confused on why the players from the previous iterations weren't asked about this. I think that in the future, a change like this should go through people that have played the tournament. What the players prefer is more important than what the hosts prefer in my opinion. Within reason, of course.
 
Re; 1v1LT Playoffs format.

The 1v1TD have previously advanced the idea of making the 1v1LT Playoffs format a Swiss format replacing the Double Elimination format, which have been met with criticism on the 1v1 discord server, so here we are again doing what we love doing, discussing (in a civil manner) some tournaments policy.

We're here to advance 3 different playoffs format proposition and we will pick what the community supports. The first one being a 3 rounds Swiss into a Single Elimination format, this format was a proposition as it is a Swiss format but is the shorter than a regular Double Elimination round allowing us to fit it easier in the schedule and avoid overlapping as much as we can, but this doesn't give justice to the swiss format. Second, a 5 rounds of Swiss, which flaw is that it will go deeper in WC so if people have no problem with that, then it's a good option. Last, the ol' reliable Double Elimination.

*Single Elim of Swiss is top 8

You will read below my personal opinions / thoughts on the topic and does not represent Rosa.
I think I do like the Swiss format more than Double Elimination and upon reflection I believe 5 Rounds Swiss into Top 8 Single Elimination is better than Double Elimination. Being able to play 5 rounds and qualifying of it rewards consistency better than Double Elimination and it also allows people that lose the first week or two to not lose motivation or give up which sometimes happens in the Double Elimination format. It also puts everyone on an equal level field. A con would be the Single Elimination format that happens after the Swiss format which doesn't forgive the loser whether that player played bad or got haxed, the grace period is only during the Swiss part. So we're trading a format that offers a safety net as long as you're in winners the whole tour, to a format where you have a safety net early but need to be more and more consistent and prepared the more we approach finals.

I don't want to force a format on people, and I don't believe people that don't qualify should so my solution is allowing people that qualify to vote for their preferred format and we'll go with it specially if opinions are divided. This thread will serve as a discussion thread whether you want to voice your opinion cause you want to, or try to convince other users about which format is preferred. We'll read everything that is written and we'll form a conclusion before the playoffs phase of LT, but the sooner the better of course.
TL:DR DEG show a bracket or something so I can see what you mean. Words are too much for me. If it overlaps WC who cares they play every game on the last weekend anyways. Majority of the time whoever qualifies for LT is good enough anyways to win. So this hypothetical idea of a "bad" player haxing someone is whack. If you wanna be in LT playoffs just L2P or be eblurb
 
I Think You should change lt to round robin, as this Lets everyone play everyone. Another option is to have a few rounds of swiss into 3 way final. Third solution is to make the tour single elim with no playoffs and just promise to not hax or get any upsets so the best players stay happy and win cuz everyone likes seeing the same people win over and over.
 

The Official Glyx

Banned deucer.
With a lack of particularly convincing support for either side, it is difficult for us to make a confident decision that would both be best for the tour while simultaneously appealing to the playerbase. As such, we will be moving forward with an alternative plan, being to directly ask the qualifiers for this LT what particular format they'd be most interested in playing, and deciding by majority vote, with the options being between Double Elimination, 5 Round Swiss playoffs into Single Elimination Top 8, or 3 Round Swiss playoffs into Single Elimination.
The deadline for voting is ASAP!
 

DEG

The night belongs to you
is a Community Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Re: 7th and 8th slot in World Cup + Timing

Alright people, time to discuss the 7th and 8th slot in World Cup. Since this tournament is a bit different than PL and people are re-assigned to teams and there's no "Pool" to draft from we're going to have to pick 2 slots from the following: SM2, DPP, and Multigen. Have fun discussing!

Additionally, people have mentioned that both PL and WC are too close and there's sign of burnout due to PL. Do we want to swap the dates of majors and WC? Push WC some weeks? Or Keep it as it is.
 

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

Top