Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

RTM · Nov 3, 2023

luser said:
However, I think that it is also important to consider giving more opportunities for new players, especially as more and more of the oldgens community leave the community / get banned over time.

I love and hate the fact its actually reasonable to plan with people being banned in mind in 1v1 as the tier progresses

DEG · Nov 27, 2023

With the 2023 circuit setting down, it is time for 2024 circuit to take its place. It is no secret the motor behind 1v1 have been its tournaments and we will capitalize more on that. Below will be envisioned changes that are being planned;

Majors: Pools to Swiss Top Cut
As a concept majors was a pretty good format, it gives the players more chances and it's definitely less punishing than other formats. However, in practice its a tournament that is dragged too long for no reason, there's no way to have fair tiebreaks, and it's not a popular format. Which is why we are rebranding the tournament from a Pools to Swiss Top Cut. The latter is a popular format in tournaments and would still give more chances to the players without the potential tiebreak and mass games numbers thrown at the player.

1v1 LT: Double Elimination to Swiss Top Cut
To mirror the 1v1 Champs changes, we will be changing 1v1 LT to Swiss Top Cut instead of Double Elimination. The latter "problems" are known, it's a time consuming format that rarely affect anything winner-wise, it's just a hopium format. Most of the time players that are out early; i.e R1 do not have the motivation to go forward which is extremely unhealthy and uncompetitive for the format. Changing it to Single Elimination might be a solution but it's more punishing than Swiss early on.

1v1 Classic: Points in cups
Changing cups to Swiss or Double Elimination would make the tournament too long and makes it clash with the majority of the circuit, specially since the cups are supposed to be run same time. The old gens circuit was supposed to be a solution but I think that doesn't really reflect Classic as a tournament and it would be a year-long tournament which lessens its hype. My solution is to mimic grand slam and to not make every cup count for the overall standings. This way people that get unlucky runs in some cups aren't punished plus it favors specializing in some generations and not have a bit of knowledge in everything. Format being Single Elim 3 bo5 would not change.

I've heard from several/many people that too much tournaments are hindering contributions and promoting OGPL or even having more tournaments would be worse for the community. I believe we should not promote to OGPL to official but hang tight, with the potential 1v1 old gens, and 1v1 as a whole to grow, we should continue adding more tournaments to the mix with lower importance than officials. Let me explain;

Recognizing our winners is something that should be done, therefore the creation of Class B tournaments which is above unofficial but below official should be done. This class of tournaments should reward not trophies but stars or any other pixel similar to trophy. It would contain OGPL, Classic Cups, and other tournaments we should add.

Old generation circuit
The circuit would run alongside the main champs circuit however it would only count type B tournaments such as Classic, OGPL, and more old generations individual tournaments. This would be a mix of both, keep classic as a tournament and give more to old generation lovers that play cause they enjoy the game.

1v1 Room & Circuit integration
We're looking at ways to build a bridge between the casual play encouraged in the 1v1 room, and the more competitive tournament community. Nothing is set in stone as of now, especially when it comes to date and logistics, but we're looking at an individual tournament similar to LT. The key difference here is that the qualifiers would be room tournaments, rather than ladder achievements. I don't think we're ready to make this a team tournament for various reasons (primarily manager motivation, having no measure for popularity, and logistical uncertainty), but we might revisit that decision in the future.

I hope these changes will be well-received and if there's any other idea / opinion, let me know.

Kowasabii · Nov 27, 2023

DEG said:
1v1 Room & Circuit integration
We're looking at ways to build a bridge between the casual play encouraged in the 1v1 room, and the more competitive tournament community. Nothing is set in stone as of now, especially when it comes to date and logistics, but we're looking at an individual tournament similar to LT. The key difference here is that the qualifiers would be room tournaments, rather than ladder achievements. I don't think we're ready to make this a team tournament for various reasons (primarily manager motivation, having no measure for popularity, and logistical uncertainty), but we might revisit that decision in the future.

I hope these changes will be well-received and if there's any other idea / opinion, let me know.

I would love to see room tours made into Bo3, like how VGC has done. If it’s possible of course. I think that’d be really fun, really no other reasoning beyond that

Murm · Nov 27, 2023

Kowasabii said:
I would love to see room tours made into Bo3, like how VGC has done. If it’s possible of course. I think that’d be really fun, really no other reasoning beyond that

Unless they've changed it, the Bo3 PS thing doesn't allow you to change your team inbetween games, which for 1v1 is very important. If they change that in the future maybe its something that can be done but for now it probably won't happen

DenisTheMenace · Nov 27, 2023

DEG said:
Recognizing our winners is something that should be done, therefore the creation of Class B tournaments which is above unofficial but below official should be done. This class of tournaments should reward not trophies but stars or any other pixel similar to trophy. It would contain OGPL, Classic Cups, and other tournaments we should add.

DEG · Dec 27, 2023

With the announcement of the 2024 circuit, it is time to re-open discussions here slowly.

1) What are your thoughts on the new GC format for top 8? Is it a good change or should we wait for the tournament to judge it.
2) What about franchising OGPL? The idea behind it would be creating a "pool" of team names that can help in replacing/switching with PL franchises too. Basically it would allow more freedom in team names for PL for future editions and introduce franchises into OGPL.

Lumii · Dec 27, 2023

1. Wait until tournament happens to judge although personally I’m a bit skeptical about adding effectively three top cuts to the champs qualification tours in the same year without ever really testing it before.
2. Franchising OGPL seems cool because it opens up stuff like relegations and stuff from PL. That seems fun.

DripLegend · Jan 2, 2024

Don’t make so many tours a Swiss finish lmao. Like lt could be fine since other tours do the same but if we’re that worried about se not being inherently competitive/cheese prone just make the series bo7. The only formats we support for most of the circuit outside of team tours and Classic is a standard of bo5, which is fine but it being the core for the higher echelon of team tours and players it should see more use in our individual circuit tours. Ideally combining with single elim structure (like champs should ideally be). I feel like we shouldn’t go overboard introducing the new toy of Swiss finishes into a lot of tours since it’s “more competitive” since people suddenly got tired of double elim.
And to answer the previous questions:
1. Leave gc the way it is. The structure as of rn is fine and the structure is inherently competitive/doesn’t take super long to carry out playoffs. Like lumii said we don’t need a top cut for nearly all of the tours to qual for champs.
2. idrc for franchising so either way it doesn’t matter much to me. I think there’s a lot of appeal in being able to start new franchises/teams with fun names so I feel like that aspect should always be on the table even if we keep franchises. Especially with the amount of new managers we see since it’s a lot more friendly to newcomers.

DEG · Jan 6, 2024

DEG said:
With the announcement of the 2024 circuit, it is time to re-open discussions here slowly.

1) What are your thoughts on the new GC format for top 8? Is it a good change or should we wait for the tournament to judge it.
2) What about franchising OGPL? The idea behind it would be creating a "pool" of team names that can help in replacing/switching with PL franchises too. Basically it would allow more freedom in team names for PL for future editions and introduce franchises into OGPL.

Since people don't like posting; https://forms.gle/ace21N8WZooqBLKFA

DEG · Jan 20, 2024

Please, find below points that I would like to discuss regarding format changes for this circuit and/or next year's. The survey is still open for responses to allow us to take better decisions. I understand that some changes may be unpopular and the process has been slow but I'm working on something to fasten the process.

Anyway, I would like to bring up the following changes for the future;

Swiss Playoffs, honestly I do like them, they take less time than DE and actually provide a balance between hype in every series and give chances, however I can see that they're not popular and some people want to go back to DE. Well, I think if people want to move away from Swiss we should def go to SE and implement a bo7 or bo9. I truly believe DE as a format is p bad and has no "meaning". Additionally, even if we keep Swiss I would also like the top 8 or w/e (single elim round) to be moved to a bo7 or bo9 to award consistency and actually the "better" player. I would advance a bo3o5 for finals too for the "show" but I think it's a very unpopular opinion and it would cause more burnout.
Masters, well, going with the DE hate train I think the format of this tournament is really painful and long for no reason. I would def. replace masters with 2 tournaments rewarding consistency and more chances for circuit playoffs. We can keep it simple and go SE for both of these tournaments, however we can also do pools+swiss (swiss in pools remove the factor of TB in the pools system), and the second would be simple SE. I truly believe two tournaments is better than one long DE for the sake of the circuit poffs competitiveness and to reward more consistent players.
I would like to brand OGPL teams, I'll share results later but the responses were mostly Abstain/In-Favor of OGPL. We didn't have enough time to come up with "great" names for this year and follow the long process so I decided to keep status quo. However, I would love to start the branding process for next circuit and reconsider OGPL place as official in our circuit if needed. Also I'm open to reconsider OGPL drafting format AND playoffs format (ie round robin, belgian league format etc...) if we're going to keep 6 teams.

My goal remains the same, allow the community to enjoy competitive 1v1 from one side, and draw more users to our community. Your opinion as a community member is highly valuable whether you're a tournament connoisseur or a new addition to our tournament scene. So please, let me know what you think whether its in the survey, a small post, or a detailed post here. I will try my best to keep in mind what the community wants but please understand that I cannot make everyone happy.

Cheers.

crucify · Thursday at 12:00 PM

hello, I'm crucify one of your tournament directors and I am here today to open up discussion about the upcoming 1v1 Premier League VIII! Manager signups start approximately one month from this post. Note this post is not my personal opinion, but representative of the collective TD team unless otherwise indicated.

3 SV, 2 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - the same format as last year
4 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for SV 4. 1 SS will remain Bo7 (best of seven) pending community input
3 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW, DPP - delete SS2 for reincluding DPP
3 SV, 1 SV UU, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for introducing 1v1 UU into the tour pending it being ready for inclusion. More on UU later in the post.

other possible formats with sufficient justification will also be considered. SV slots include one Bo7 slot as always

The most recent team tour the unofficial OGPL used the following to decide manager buy prices:

Max 20k, manager pairs + hosts vote. The highest and lowest price for each manager were removed and then the rest were averaged: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouoRSeJJ1smagUeVG6MAWqoxTQU7I8/htmlview#gid=0

This and previous manager voting methods have been criticized for their subjectivity and ways to game the system; this seems to be the most refined way to do manager voting though. Other possibilities for how to go about manager voting include:

Flat Pricing - 15k for each buy, higher could be considered but not lower. It is also possible to increase it for if both managers buy, e.g. 15k for one buy, 35k if both managers buy, or to limit this to one self buy per team.
Formula based on record - used in a lot of other tiers, examples including:

(Price last UUPL you played in or 10,000, whichever is higher + (10,000 + (# of wins last UUPL you played in * 1500))) / 2 , rounded up to the nearest .500.

So for example, if I were to do this and I had 1 win in the previous year, my price would be as follows: (10,000 + (10,000 + (1 * 1500))) / 2 = 10750, rounded up to 11,000.

Manager price = (M-1) * 500 * # of wins last MPL + (P + 3000) + 750 * # of wins last MPL - 1000 * # of losses last MPL

M being the number of selfbuys performed by the team (1 or 2).
P being the price of said player in their last MPL capped at 17000.
If they never played MPL or if their price was lower than 10000, it defaults to 10000. The result is rounded up.

these can run into issues with managers who previously self bought and played, but that can be figured out. the goal is to make managers pay fairly reasonable prices for themselves, and for the prices to On Average be not too cheap or too high because outliers with any system is inevitable.

Also consider this and the next point to be long term; don't just look at what the prices will be for the upcoming PL, but what would make the most sense going forward.

There are those in favor of limiting the max number of manager buys/retains. Currently both managers can buy with a maximum of two retains. Limiting this would look like a maximum of three between the two, with a maximum of two retains.

Personal thought: I don't know the actual reason behind this. Starting with half of your lineup before the auction is silly I guess? Those who support this post on this.

We would like to set this rule straight after the controversy last tour. Players are eligible to call act if mid series after challenging their opponent does not accept within 7 minutes. If players are sitting there waiting and their opponent does not challenge for 7 minutes, they are not eligible to call act. This works like any other act call where if you wait more than 7 minutes but a game starts you are not eligible to retroactively call act. The timer resets after every game, though it could be interesting to have it be allotted time to use between games.

Note this rule does require you do have time stamps on in HH:MM:SS. This is not a high hurdle, but any complaints about this rule can go in this thread.

UU is an interesting concept in 1v1 that interest has been growing in. Ladder usage stats for the previous month can be found here smogon.com/stats/2024-04/gen91v1-1760.txt, look below 0.53% usage%. Others are planning on speaking more about the tier at a whole, but UU used to be a part of this tour and could be a part of it again if people want. An unofficial tour for it will be starting this month so people can try it out.

Giving Personal thoughts on this so people don't unjustly count this out:
I think UU is a cool concept because I know a lot of people play 1v1 to use fun mons, and the naturally lower power level and less centralization of UU (No archaludon, gouging fire, hearthflame, etc) makes that possible. Furthermore, I believe a lot of people find fresh 1v1 metas to be the most fun, and UU is fresh with the new month's usage stats; this also has the effect of UU having the same barrier of entry for everybody because it's new stats. Even if it doesn't get to the level of Developed as a tier like SS or BW, it would be fine to include because fresh = good generally.

All feedback on any of these topics are welcome; if there isn't any significant push/consensus for any of these, the status quos will be upheld. Feel free to bring up other topics related to tours. Decisions will be made on these before manager signups go up.

Jamez · Thursday at 12:14 PM

Get rid of ss2 for sv4 or dpp, sv4 is probably more qualified, dpp has seen some new players though.

As for manager pricing. I think just stick with the current voting system, the formula based system would be the next best imo but never flat pricing.

Timer seems fine as it is, 7 minutes between games is enough time to discuss with your team if you need. Anymore time than this can be just a ridiculous time to wait between games if opponents choose to use all their time

Murm · Thursday at 12:19 PM

I don't have too much to say but I'll briefly lay out what I'd prefer

Slots: I think DPP is the way to go, but honestly I wouldn't be upset with either 2 SS slots or a UU slot. I think DPP is preferred due to UU being very new (only getting its first tour in like a week from now), and from what I've seen, the interest in SS has been going down recently. DPP however has been doing very well for itself after the Jirachi and Clefable bans, and PL seems like the perfect place for the meta to develop further. Again, really the only one I would be upset to have is 4 SV slots, let's keep that in WC.

Manager Pricing: I think the current voting system is fine as long as blatant (I'm blanking on the correct term but for now I'm just going to say pricefixing) is actually dealt with. Of course we have the high and low prices being removed but if a player actively does it, it shouldn't be ignored. I would honestly be fine with a formula approach as well if the hosts don't feel comfortable with doing what I just said.

Retains: Honestly I'm not a fan of retains in general, I wouldn't be opposed to changing it but I'm fine with w/e

lost heros · Thursday at 12:27 PM

crucify said:
hello, I'm crucify one of your tournament directors and I am here today to open up discussion about the upcoming 1v1 Premier League VIII! Manager signups start approximately one month from this post. Note this post is not my personal opinion, but representative of the collective TD team unless otherwise indicated.

3 SV, 2 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - the same format as last year
4 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for SV 4. 1 SS will remain Bo7 (best of seven) pending community input
3 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW, DPP - delete SS2 for reincluding DPP
3 SV, 1 SV UU, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for introducing 1v1 UU into the tour pending it being ready for inclusion. More on UU later in the post.

other possible formats with sufficient justification will also be considered. SV slots include one Bo7 slot as always

The most recent team tour the unofficial OGPL used the following to decide manager buy prices:

Max 20k, manager pairs + hosts vote. The highest and lowest price for each manager were removed and then the rest were averaged: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouoRSeJJ1smagUeVG6MAWqoxTQU7I8/htmlview#gid=0

This and previous manager voting methods have been criticized for their subjectivity and ways to game the system; this seems to be the most refined way to do manager voting though. Other possibilities for how to go about manager voting include:

Flat Pricing - 15k for each buy, higher could be considered but not lower. It is also possible to increase it for if both managers buy, e.g. 15k for one buy, 35k if both managers buy, or to limit this to one self buy per team.
Formula based on record - used in a lot of other tiers, examples including:

(Price last UUPL you played in or 10,000, whichever is higher + (10,000 + (# of wins last UUPL you played in * 1500))) / 2 , rounded up to the nearest .500.

So for example, if I were to do this and I had 1 win in the previous year, my price would be as follows: (10,000 + (10,000 + (1 * 1500))) / 2 = 10750, rounded up to 11,000.

Manager price = (M-1) * 500 * # of wins last MPL + (P + 3000) + 750 * # of wins last MPL - 1000 * # of losses last MPL

M being the number of selfbuys performed by the team (1 or 2).
P being the price of said player in their last MPL capped at 17000.
If they never played MPL or if their price was lower than 10000, it defaults to 10000. The result is rounded up.

these can run into issues with managers who previously self bought and played, but that can be figured out. the goal is to make managers pay fairly reasonable prices for themselves, and for the prices to On Average be not too cheap or too high because outliers with any system is inevitable.

Also consider this and the next point to be long term; don't just look at what the prices will be for the upcoming PL, but what would make the most sense going forward.

There are those in favor of limiting the max number of manager buys/retains. Currently both managers can buy with a maximum of two retains. Limiting this would look like a maximum of three between the two, with a maximum of two retains.

Personal thought: I don't know the actual reason behind this. Starting with half of your lineup before the auction is silly I guess? Those who support this post on this.

We would like to set this rule straight after the controversy last tour. Players are eligible to call act if mid series after challenging their opponent does not accept within 7 minutes. If players are sitting there waiting and their opponent does not challenge for 7 minutes, they are not eligible to call act. This works like any other act call where if you wait more than 7 minutes but a game starts you are not eligible to retroactively call act. The timer resets after every game, though it could be interesting to have it be allotted time to use between games.

Note this rule does require you do have time stamps on in HH:MM:SS. This is not a high hurdle, but any complaints about this rule can go in this thread.

UU is an interesting concept in 1v1 that interest has been growing in. Ladder usage stats for the previous month can be found here smogon.com/stats/2024-04/gen91v1-1760.txt, look below 0.53% usage%. Others are planning on speaking more about the tier at a whole, but UU used to be a part of this tour and could be a part of it again if people want. An unofficial tour for it will be starting this month so people can try it out.

Giving Personal thoughts on this so people don't unjustly count this out:
I think UU is a cool concept because I know a lot of people play 1v1 to use fun mons, and the naturally lower power level and less centralization of UU (No archaludon, gouging fire, hearthflame, etc) makes that possible. Furthermore, I believe a lot of people find fresh 1v1 metas to be the most fun, and UU is fresh with the new month's usage stats; this also has the effect of UU having the same barrier of entry for everybody because it's new stats. Even if it doesn't get to the level of Developed as a tier like SS or BW, it would be fine to include because fresh = good generally.

All feedback on any of these topics are welcome; if there isn't any significant push/consensus for any of these, the status quos will be upheld. Feel free to bring up other topics related to tours. Decisions will be made on these before manager signups go up.

I'll share my two cents why not.

Status quo for tiers is the best idea. For OGPL, DPP had the smallest pool in sign-ups with only 22 signups with maybe 3 people putting it as their first tier of choice. Putting DPP in will almost certainly lead to several weeks and matches where filler sub will be facing filler sub with re-used teams. It won't be good. Based on just OGPL, I do think SS can continue to support 2 slots, although SV4 could be good if there is a lot of interest from new players (there's not so skip imo). 1v1 UU is not real. There's been no tournaments for it. How the tier list has been developed is still a bit sus. I don't even think there's a VR active.

As for limiting managers and retains, I'm just in general in favor of more things going on in the draft rather than being decided beforehand. I do think having retains and manager buys favors certain teams, but honestly I don't really care much about that.

Nuxl · Thursday at 12:29 PM

uu > ss2 > dpp > sv4

1v1 gets more fun when you introduce more metas so i put uu first, and sv needs a lot more work than just archaludon. the ss2 player pool is probably better than the dpp one due to more people combing their teams meaning they are on average bringing not bad stuff to battle unlike what i had personally been traumatized by last ogpl. glhf!

edit: me personally dpp is a fine tier and is probably better than sv4 and some may say ss2 as wel!. I just struggle to see 8 actual good players willing to play it, which seems to be the largest obstacle for the 8th slot. So UU or SS2 seems more preferable for uh competitiveness

neomon · Thursday at 1:31 PM

sv4>dpp>ss2>uu

I still dont understand why 1v1 insists on having some old gen twice, didnt get it back when it was sm either, there's an old gen premier league for that
i think its inevitable to introduce uu eventually, but i spent a whole minute looking for ressources and i didnt find a thing,maybe get a tryhard pl and add it next year
about the manager buy thing i dont really care, a good 85% of the time self buying is a choke anyway, god forbid self buying both
and retains i like for legacys/franchises - 3 max sounds fine to me and a manager buy

Synonimous · Thursday at 1:46 PM

lost heros said:
1v1 UU is not real.

Murm said:
I think DPP is preferred due to UU being very new (only getting its first tour in like a week from now).

zioziotrip · Thursday at 2:15 PM

uu not having super robust resources is to be expected for a tier that shifts frequently but also not entirely true. There is a large replay base, public teams, and many individuals put out prospective vrs. Much of this has to be transferred from cord to smogon but it will in time, the interest is there.

i think with ogpl and wcup there is plenty of non-cg representation, dropping second ss seems pretty reasonable. uu provides a unique chance for exploration in the most competitive tour 1v1 has which to me would be an amazing break from the redundancy of every tour having pretty much the same format (why does ogpl not support gsc/rby, to preserve the 5000th reuse in fairy gens?). I think 1v1 tours largely lack diversification and identity, uu would encourage people to actually buy good builders instead of seeing some poor soul try to build 8 different slots.

Waylaid · Thursday at 2:29 PM

I support ss>sv4>dpp>uu for the upcoming PL, ss has a sufficiently large player base to support two slots at a competitive level, and this ogpl did extremely little to change my mind on dpp being a hax-dominated meta game, with barely enough Mainers to ensure competitiveness. Regarding 1v1 uu, I think that tier is not organized or established enough (barely getting out of solely discord tours, extremely minimal smogon presence) to qualify it for the upcoming PL. I was also more impressed with the level of ss2 last pl than I expect to be with an sv4.

Regarding manager prices, I support either a no-cap voting system between opposing managers and host (some managers should be over 20k) or would advocate for managers to not be able to buy themselves at all, which would certainly be least logistically challenging but may limit the number of qualified manager signups. I don’t feel like any action should be taken on retains.

Blanched · Thursday at 2:41 PM

initial reaction to 1 ss slot was “????” but the more i think about it it’s not really the end of the world as long as theres still a bo7. i think for the most competitive tour we have 2 ss slots since it’s one of if not the most developed tiers and has a large player base. sv4 is fine i guess but nothing special or interesting, however i think that adding 4 slots of the same tier is just asking for sv4 to be the weekly joke slot. sv uu is meh, and the novelty of a uu tier doesn’t outweigh the competitiveness of ss, on top of the fact that resources for this tier don't exist and it will have had a grand total of 1 test run tour before pl. why are we even considering adding dpp back? extremely low playerbase, extremely low interest. we spent actual months to get this removed from pl6. whoever proposed this just wanted a 10k euphonos retain.

tldr - ss2 > sv4 > sv uu > getting beat with a hammer > dpp

edit: in the tour discussion channel, LittEleven proposed sv2v2 as the potential 8th slot. i think if we’re gonna pull 1v1 uu out of ancient 1v1 history as a potential slot, 2v2 should get a chance as well. not only does it have more players and more development, but it has actual resources that are in the process of being fully overhauled. it’s also a markedly better tier than dpp and arguably sv4. i think 2v2 should be added to the discussion and the list of potential 8th slots, if 1v1 uu is even being considered.

bern · Thursday at 3:07 PM

ss2 > sv uu > dpp >>> +2 gigaton hammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sv4

ss2: i like more old gen appreciation also make ss better Mishlef, ss has more than enough playerbase for 2 slots and it's also cool for old gens to get love so i support it.

sv uu: i have not played a game of sv uu (Mishlef could be focused on making sv uu an actual slot over ss) but if i think it's better than SS and can actually make itself its own little community, then more power to it. also saying uu is not real is like, what.
dpp: no clefable means nuxl isn't going positive

jokes aside tho while i'm not against dpp being added i think there isn't enough community support for it, as builders you p much got jamez filipinos lumii rei and eli so i'm not super sure about this one, especially cuz i think rei and lumii are prob sitting this one out

sv4: keep sv4 is getting kicked in the balls, keep it to wc

i'm fine with manager pricing being kept the same as OGPL 2, i think those were fine
no opinion on retains

crow crumbs · Thursday at 3:15 PM

as long as 1 ss slot is bo7 im a happy camper.

ss2>=sv uu>>dpp>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sv4

- i would say ss2 is most preferable on the basis of "don't fix what isn't broken"
- sv uu would 100% be the most fun option and i think the unofficial tiers have looked balanced/playable enough. i think it could be worth a shot and we can just pretend it doesn't exist if its bad (like mg).
- dpp is an awful tier but i don't think its completely rotten to the core and it needs the development. if theres people (euph, strav?, lumi????, dreepy ???) who actually want to play it then its fine to include.
- we had a record high amount of meme compilation games with 3 sv slots and a 4th slot of some random getting passed teams wont help the meta develop, this option is atrocious and should prob never be considered acceptable if the goal is for the tour to be competitive (or fun). admittedly though, low quality 1v1 replays are one of lifes simple pleasures so i won't call it a complete non-starter.

DripLegend · Thursday at 3:19 PM

Idrc about slots but I favor uu in concept since I think the nature of the slot encourages new people and rewards activity on top of the barrier to entry being lower than a lot of the current pools. If it isn’t developed I would not force it and while it has not seen a ton of development in the smogon spotlight, building and play testing the tier/discord for fun tours have been a pretty fun experience and I think more people should be open to the idea. I don’t have a horse besides uu in the slot race besides sv since I do lead the tier (

) and even then I think adding more sv since it is “accessible” to new people and is theoretically more available since it is current gen is just what uu accomplishes in a less exciting manner. Sv4 after adding more sv to wc also feels counterintuitive and stepping on wc’s toes in terms of slot identity.

I think our current manager buy system is bad and all the other options are something I like more. It’s hard to say which supports us more but as it stands most managers are going to game the current system (painfully obvious or not) and letting the pool decide prices for their own opponents outside of the auction just gives way too much room for bias imo. I don’t have a preference on flat or formula based as of writing this. From talking with a decent amount of people some do support outright disallowing manager bans, which is not the worst idea but it does severely inhibit the current managing pool since most managers do selfbuy for auction or at least one of the two does. It’s easier to theorize about how manager signups look when none are allowed to play than actually know the outcome since every 1v1 tour previously has allowed managers to self buy/play if they choose to do so. Retains feel fine to me at the moment I feel like limiting them is kinda cope for teams drafting well in previous renditions.

luser · Thursday at 4:59 PM

ss2 > dpp > uu > mg > monopoke > team fight tactics > sv4, however these options all feel awkward

I enjoyed playing ss2 this OGPL and think its a competitive, healthy slot.

4 SV slots just means that a bunch of non-mainer pre-established 1v1 players will be passed from their team's building slave which is arguably the worst possible outcome. Pool of dedicated SV players is too small to organically support this slot

UU is cool on paper but I'm worried it just turns SV3 into SV4. Additionally, although it sounds like the barrier to entry is lower, I'd argue the opposite. With less resources developed the only way to get a good grasp on the meta is to obsessively stalk discords and replays and whatever + do your own setbuilding which is much more difficult than copypasting sets and making hitlists on high-sample VRs and usage stats.

----

Personal issue but I think the timer between games should be lowered below 7 minutes. People need to stop dragging out series to 1 hour+ for no reason. Preparing ideas of what to load beforehand, managing your stress between games, and on the spot decision making are valuable skills which should be rewarded more. If you have a sudden emergency then communicate that to your opponent and hope they're nice about it.

STABLE · Thursday at 6:55 PM

UU > SV4 > SS2 > DPP

i've been advocating for removing the second lastgen slot since SM was CG, it's time to bite the bullet. It's becoming harder and harder to fill both of the slots and most of the time it's just oldies being relegated to the gen they know they're good at instead of being able to experiment and get out of their comfort zone. It's always a good thing for people to have an incentive to play other gens, and especially for older SS blood to fill up the SV pool and make it stronger.

dpp has shown itself still terrible in ogpl, people keep saying "but it looks much better now after X ban!" ignoring the vicious cycle that has been going on for years; nobody had their radar on Clefable until it suddenly became the new broken and got banned, and no one is gonna have their radar on the next new broken which will make the tier unplayable in PL until they ban it and "hey now Y got banned DPP is finally good!", surprise surprise it actually is not.

its between sv4 and uu, and realistically sv4 is just sv3 but worse and imo it's gonna bring a lot of bad randoms, forcing managers to buy 6v6 clickers and feed them teams, or getting oldgen mainers to pick up the gen just to fill a slot. On top of that, having 4 slots of a gen that also has Bo7 makes for a ridiculous amount of building work and early burnout, and does not really help for meta development that much since it's gonna encourage a ton of re-using teams and sets and cores. Arguably it will reduce innovation because actual good builders who try and make new sets won't really have the time to think and experiment because you gotta have 22 teams at the ready every week stat and who has time for that.

sv uu clearly has people that are dedicated to it, find it fun and really wanna play it, and that's definitely the most important thing. Fresh metas are the most fun metas and we have not had anything new or fresh in PL for ages and ages, besides the new gens/dlc drops. I think this has left the tournament running a little stagnant, without much incentive for anything more than buying the same people, playing the same tiers and bread and butter building the same teams.
I think the biggest thing is give people the time to play the tour, make some resources and see how the meta is shaping up, and if people are exciting to play it, then it's definitely the way to go

Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

RTM

DEG

Kowasabii

Murm

formerly Murman

DenisTheMenace

DEG

Lumii

DripLegend

a fake charisma

DEG

DEG

crucify

Jamez

Murm

formerly Murman

lost heros

Meme Master

Nuxl

new message from your psychologist

neomon

Synonimous

zioziotrip

Waylaid

Blanched

bern

no.1 cramorant fan ❤️

crow crumbs

DripLegend

a fake charisma

luser

STABLE

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