It's that time again.... I'll start by replying to some stuff in the thread and then I'll give my opinions.
Ideal format: Make MPL 6 slots, 8 players minimum, 11 maximum. MWP should be 8 slots imo regardless of oms or not but yeah diff conversation.
Gonna stress that regardless of what happens this MPL, I do not have any intention of making making the next MPL 6 slots. The next MPL will be during gen 9, and only 2 CG slots (since we have 4 old gens) is absolutely ridiculous, especially for a fresh and developing meta game. CG will be in peak development around that time and will need all the presentation it should get, as well as the tournament scene should have its doors more open to welcome in the next generation of mainstays. The only possible way I could see myself supporting 6 posts next MPL is if we get messed up by an even worse case of dexit/movexit that makes the tier really uninteresting. And no, making the 2 CG slots Bo3 is not sufficient.
I think bo3 is better suited to 6 slots than 8. Only cause it's harder to fodder with 6 slots. Regardless bo3 is kinda whatever and it can go or stay idrc. For the love of everything holy tho it shouldn't be part of 8 slots.
Already briefly went over the ORAS/BW thing on discord and don't think it's really worth going over unless it becomes relevant. Just gonna add that I'm on the camp of no Bo3 in 8 slots, and Bo3 SS in 6 slots. Boosts the amount of games which is always nice for the tournament, and ideally higher quality ones, as well as giving the main tier greater focus. I think the Bo3 SS we had 2 MWPs ago was a pretty cool slot from memory and would be nice to continue. It was great when it was the slot back in MPL3 for SM and should be a mainstay tradition imo.
Regardless of format I think we should re think manager buys for this year. If we are to still have manager buys I believe that the manager prices should be something along the lines of 10k/15k/20k/25k/30k. I'm not sure how to determine price for a manager just yet but I think the best way would probably be to base it off of previous tours both team
I don't really understand where this one is coming from because that's exactly how MPL does it? The price ranges are different but for the past few tours the prices have been determined based on past MPL performances. Individuals aren't included in the formula, but it's not really a fair basis since not everyone plays in them. Someone could end up being "punished" for playing in individuals through their price being increased while others would get 0 contribution from it. The MPL I hosted is where we started the tradition of attempting to "balance" manager prices so I definitely agree with the sentiment, but the issue is that it's really difficult to find a proper formula that would attribute accurate prices; any thing that comes up is usually abusable in some shape or form. I do think the Wilson score method has been rather adequate these past few years though and would not be opposed to continuing it or modifying if an alternative is proposed by anyone.
all the games in 6 slots can be dogshit the same amount of 8 slots
Foddering exists cause it's viable. And it's viable for a reason lol.
Echoing what Chait said to this. it just doesn't make sense, objectively speaking there would be less bad games and it would be less temping to fodder. Sure, bad games can happen plenty in 6 slots, such is the nature of Pokemon, etc... but conceptually it is guaranteed to weed out low quality games playing wise. Foddering an effective tactic in 8 slots and has been used plenty, your (cy) experience comes from a 6 slot tour where the risk of foddering is higher, and in theory the "access" to fodder is less. What I mean by that is in 8 slots you could realistically have 1 slot where you know not much is gonna come out of it, hence you can just fodder the one filling that one in. In 6 slots, generally teams should have a higher caliber of players and have less of a need to do so.
What do people think about only 1 manager per team?
I honestly second Chait where he mentions each team having one manager to start off with, but only if it is 6 slots. It should be manageable for a solo manager to create a draft plan for a slightly reduced slot count, but anymore and the manager should really have a locked-in helper. One manager per team would also make the manager price issue less influential considering it will affect half the number of people and you can no longer stack two high caliber players together for a sizable discount. I am often cautious about making too many changes to the format at once, but 6 slots + solo manager seem to go hand-in-hand imo.
I was a supporter of this during MWP, not sure if I ended up including it in my post back then since I knew it would not get a lot of support. While it is most definitely more enjoyable to go into a tournament with a co-manager, logistically it just makes more sense with 1 manager. This solves many issues regarding managers: less "broken manager pairs" and assures a "high quality" manager for every team, which becomes increasingly difficult with 2 managers since the usuals get tired of doing it multiple times a year, every year. It also just makes the pool better by having people move into the player pool and bring more diversity to the teams. Also as Ticken said, definitely support it in a 6 slot context.
I believe there should be some form of relegation of managers who consistently do poorly for these team tournaments.
I 100% agree with this. I believe the issue about manager relegation is more practical than ideal, as most managers are already predetermined by a small percentage of this community. Even then, it is possible to give an opportunity for those who decide to manage and want to work out their teams over managers who have had poor consistency and mindset. Managers should always have great responsibility for the road their team takes, even when not playing (but even more so true if they do decide to play).
This is an absolutely terrible idea and does not make much sense. First of all, there isn't exactly an abundance of quality manager signups such that you can relegate people. Most team tours usually have 1 or 2 viable options that get snubbed out, and the other ones are people who wouldn't have been trusted for it because of a lack of history playing/community wise or in terms of demonstrating the capability of holding the responsibility of being a manager. If someone were to genuinely just "be bad" as a manager, they would just lose their spot to a more viable option. Making a system like a relegation is so rigid and flawed. It also does not consider what other factors lead to a teams performance. Should we ban the teambuilders from the teams that finished last because the lack of quality can be attributed to them? I went 0-7 last tour, should I and anyone else with a low record not be allowed to signup because of a past performance? I think all of that is sufficient to point out that relegation is the complete wrong approach. If someone is known for genuinely being bad, the court of public opinion will weed them out without needing rules to do so. Moreover, you mentioned Izaya as an example which is a completely wrong one too. He managed 4 tours, one of them is MWCOP which cannot be used as an argument because managers have little control on their options, and he finished in semis for the last one. Only one of those 3 non-MWCOP tours was a last place finish. The other time he finished last, he was just a player on the team.
TL;DR: relegation is nonsense
Now, if we did stick with 2 managers, that brings us back to the initial problem of manager pricing. I'd like to reconsider the idea of having 2 managers but only 1 is allowed to play. This means that pricing wise it's the same as if we only had 1 manager but teams will still be able to have the 2 managers we are used to.
This, along with what you were saying about BLT, just gets solved by what Chait was proposing about having 1 manager + a co-manager decided post draft.
Now with that out of the way, my opinions:
Format: 6 Slots : SS Bo3 / SS / SS / SM / ORAS / BW
It is worth giving 6 slots a chance, and with this being the last SS focused team tour (in theory), it could be interesting to give a real focus on the competitive side. I do however agree with the sentiment of 8 slots being preferred in a community sense, and dislike the idea of downscaling our tournaments. If this tournament is 6 slots, I'd definitely look into compensating for it in other ways. However, as I mentioned before, I don't plan on 6 slots being a permanent thing as next MPL should be 8.
Managers: 1 manager + optional co-manager (only 1 of the 2 can be bought). If you do not have a co-manager, you would select someone from the team you drafted.
The idea I've had for a while and a bit of a mix of stuff that was mentioned throughout the thread. It is essentially similar to what NUPL does I believe? The benefits of 1 manager have been mentioned before, and the optional co-manager lets people who had no intention of playing regardless team up with someone. For example, think of past former manager pairs like Ticken + Zukushiku. The co-manager being optional pre-draft allows people to signup as a solo manager without being forced to get a non-playing assman.
Manager prices: Still torn on this topic tbh. I'm not sure on either doing a fixed price (20/25 k probably) or continuing the Wilson score approach. If anyone has some alternative formulas, or examples from other tiers, please do share !
Retains: No
Broken and kinda dumb system; it's fun for legacy purposes but just has too many potential issues. It's somewhat acceptable in 8 slots, but very abusable in 6 slots. Also, if we are going down from 8 to 6, it doesn't make sense to keep the same eligibilities and prices when the whole system is about to change.
Team size: 6 starters + 2 subs minimum.
Disagree with imposing a maximum like Chait suggested.
I don't think there is anything else to add so I'll leave it at that unless something else gets brought up. One thing however is in terms of the solo manager debate, I'd be interested in knowing what our signup options are like. Would some people only manage if they are a team of 2? Would some only manage alone? etc.. I know some people don't wanna reveal their managing plans right now, but if someone is interested in managing and doesn't mind, it would be nice if you could PM me your responses to those questions, and who your co would be in the case where 2 is mandatory. Not really a necessity, but depending on the responses I could maybe be swayed towards leaving it as 2 but I strongly lean towards 1 rn.
And to reiterate, the MPL following this one, I believe we should be doing a return to form which means back to 8 slots and 2 managers regardless of the outcome of this one. It is essential that in a new metagame we prioritize its development and on building its community. SS has stabilized to a point where we can have a tournament that prioritizes quality over quantity. That will not be case for the burgeoning state we will be in come next MPL.