Pre-OMPL XII Discussion Thread

[Isaiah]

What if we do fixed AAA slot + each team picks tier they want to play? They can rank all choices too if that helps

If we are operating under the assumption that "everyone can field good AAA" anyway, then we end up with strong tiebreak slot + each team getting a chance to put forth their "best" effort in a tier of their choice.

 

[augustakira]

Personally I think the best option is to have a fixed Bo3 slot if there's going to be a fixed slot, because that's the slot with the least potential for massive skill gaps or cheese (due to it being bo3 and having 3 different metas so even if you suck at one you'll probably have an advantage in another).

Also in #tournaments people were discussing changing the Bo3 slot to remove BH because supposedly BH is too unapprochable and you won't be able to slot tour players who can just rely on their support for teams. Personally I think that change would totally miss the point of the slot, since BH is a tier that encourages you to slot OM mainers who actually understand it. I don't want to be a gatekeeper but I feel like the bo3 slot is supposed to be the most competitive or "most hype" slot, and having it be filled with some of the best OMs players just makes sense for the OM team tour.

(Also BH isn't a whole different game lol you can still learn the fundamentals and get passed teams it's just harder)
Edit: after discussing more I should clarify this. I'm not saying we should gatekeep tours players, I'm saying if they want to learn BH they can, but we shouldn't bend over to accomodate them if they don't want to learn a core OM.

 

[BoingK]

Tiebreak
There are a few good procedures mentioned for tiebreakers already here, I like the strike 2-2-1, or the pick 1 each then strike 2-2-1. Even pick 1 each and one random pick is fine. I personally dislike fixed slots in tiebreaker - I don't really have any strong reasoning, I don't like it tbqh, but I suppose you could argue that it forces teams to prioritise certain tiers over others in the planning and drafting phase, which only really makes sense for AAA or Bo3, so if you were to have a fixed slot it should be one of those.

One method you could use is similar to the striking system in Pokemon Unite - ban first then pick. You'd ban strike metas each (1-2-1) and then each team would pick one - this would leave us with two metas left over however, so you'd either need a) a fixed slot or b) the higher seed picking two metas, which seems rough or c) a coinflip to decide the final meta - which should in theory work, since the teams have banned their weakest metas.

Bo3
I know this isn't changing this year, but it feels like Bo3 is more trouble than it's worth - you could easily replace this with a different metagame like Camomons - if you're willing to either create another permaladder (this would either require a u-turn on previous policy or a monthly ladder to blow up in plays like Shared Power did) - or with a second metagame slot - AAA is the obvious candidate. Back me up Redflix

 

[Chessking345]

The higher seed will strike two of the eight formats; the lower seed will then strike two formats; the higher seed will then strike one additional format. The remaining three formats will be played.

I think this is ideal if no fixed tier + only strikes. If the teams are completely tied you could potentially adjust the strike order to make it more balanced (e.g. the team with less strikes gets the last strike)

both teams pick a format to be played -> higher seed strikes two -> lower seed strikes two -> higher seed strikes one

If it is preferred that teams should be able to pick a tier in the tiebreaker my proposal would be to edit this to be
Team 1 strike -> Team 2 strike + pick -> Team 1 pick + strike -> Team 2 two strike -> Team 1 strike (basically adding 2 strikes before picks)
This allows teams to guarantee to be able to strike out any outstandingly bad matchups which should overall make the TB more close and generally places less weight on the 3rd tier that remains. Only having 1 strike each before picks also allows teams to likely still get one of their strong tiers.

Also agree with Akiras post regarding if there being fixed slot then it should be Bo3 + the bh blurb
If there is a fixed slot I also think its a positive to allow teams to strike once before picking, so something like
Team 1 strike -> Team 2 strike + pick -> Team 1 pick

 

[Greybaum]

Take a step back and think about what adding a BO3 slot was meant to achieve; it's intended to be a prestigious slot with the best players and the most competition that celebrates our three flagship OMs; AAA, STAB, and BH. We've had multiple changes in leadership since this decision was made so I want to ask plainly - is this still the generally held belief among staff? Because if it is then our tiebreaks should reflect that, and there are multiple ways to do that.
- Three fixed tiers, AAA, BH, and STAB.
- One fixed tier, that being BO3. Both teams then pick a tier.
- Literally just a single BO3 slot between two team figureheads.

If, however, you guys no longer believe in BO3, then why insist on this cursed path? Would people complain if we just replaced it with a second AAA slot? I'm biased; it's the only non-randbats tier I enjoy in this bloody cursed generation, but it's also hard to argue against it being the biggest tier OMs have while being very easy to pick up, and I promise it's not too late to revamp the tour.

Also, since I've gotten Isaiah's blessing to post this, I want to once again suggest we have MNM replace BH. I won't deny BH has more ladder players and a more active forum thread, but I don't like seeing it in the BO3 slot for multiple reasons, the biggest and most relevant one being that it's not intuitive. You can't pick up and play the tier like you can AAA/STAB/MNM/GG and there's no getting away from that. Yeah, you can "just learn" if you want to spend a week or two grinding ladder and being unofficially tutored, but frankly that's a drag and we don't have enough competent BH players for that to be feasible in a team tour format. Akira said earlier today "bh pool is gonna be so ass this year tho cuz bo3 stealing half of the players" and frankly I think it's the opposite - people like Lily that would otherwise be strong drafts aren't going to sign up for BO3 because it's too much of a commitment.

Previously I said that it'd probably be fine eventually if we agreed to stick with BO3 as people would be forced to learn BH over time, but our playerbase numbers are volatile - people join and leave all the time, and I no longer think this is feasible.

BH is a tier that encourages you to slot OM mainers who actually understand it. I don't want to be a gatekeeper but I feel like the bo3 slot is supposed to be the most competitive or "most hype" slot, and having it be filled with some of the best OMs players just makes sense for the OM team tour.
~~~
Edit: after discussing more I should clarify this. I'm not saying we should gatekeep tours players, I'm saying if they want to learn BH they can, but we shouldn't bend over to accomodate them if they don't want to learn a core OM.

OM mainers don't understand BH. They don't exist at all, for the most part. There's QT and FC, maybe pannu and Clas if you wanna stretch it, but that's it. Just check discord logs for messages sent in 2024:
Akira: BH and Inheritance channels only.
Chessking: BH channel only.
cityscapes: BH channel only.
Tea Guzzler: BH channel only.
TTTech, Ivar, abriel: nothing. not in BH nor the other channels. This last batch of players do not actively contribute to discussion, nor to resources, they swing by whenever a tour starts up and clean house because they're good at the game, and there is nothing wrong with that! But there's no significant difference between these people and other "tour players" like hariyana grande, stareal, and Lily except that one batch has put the time in to learn BH and the other batch hasn't, and logistically I think it's too much to ask players to pick up BH on the fly with such a scarcity of both time and resources. We do not have 16 viable BH clickers and patching up that deficit with new players is realistically not happening whereas we can get battle-ready MNM (or even GG) players sorted in a day.

TL;DR having accessible tiers leads to having high level games. Gatekeeping "tour players" and tribalism does not.

 

[iLiekMudkipz_]

Take a step back and think about what adding a BO3 slot was meant to achieve; it's intended to be a prestigious slot with the best players and the most competition that celebrates our three flagship OMs; AAA, STAB, and BH. We've had multiple changes in leadership since this decision was made so I want to ask plainly - is this still the generally held belief among staff? Because if it is then our tiebreaks should reflect that, and there are multiple ways to do that.
- Three fixed tiers, AAA, BH, and STAB.
- One fixed tier, that being BO3. Both teams then pick a tier.
- Literally just a single BO3 slot between two team figureheads.

If, however, you guys no longer believe in BO3, then why insist on this cursed path? Would people complain if we just replaced it with a second AAA slot? I'm biased; it's the only non-randbats tier I enjoy in this bloody cursed generation, but it's also hard to argue against it being the biggest tier OMs have while being very easy to pick up, and I promise it's not too late to revamp the tour.

Also, since I've gotten Isaiah's blessing to post this, I want to once again suggest we have MNM replace BH. I won't deny BH has more ladder players and a more active forum thread, but I don't like seeing it in the BO3 slot for multiple reasons, the biggest and most relevant one being that it's not intuitive. You can't pick up and play the tier like you can AAA/STAB/MNM/GG and there's no getting away from that. Yeah, you can "just learn" if you want to spend a week or two grinding ladder and being unofficially tutored, but frankly that's a drag and we don't have enough competent BH players for that to be feasible in a team tour format. Akira said earlier today "bh pool is gonna be so ass this year tho cuz bo3 stealing half of the players" and frankly I think it's the opposite - people like Lily that would otherwise be strong drafts aren't going to sign up for BO3 because it's too much of a commitment.

Previously I said that it'd probably be fine eventually if we agreed to stick with BO3 as people would be forced to learn BH over time, but our playerbase numbers are volatile - people join and leave all the time, and I no longer think this is feasible.


OM mainers don't understand BH. They don't exist at all, for the most part. There's QT and FC, maybe pannu and Clas if you wanna stretch it, but that's it. Just check discord logs for messages sent in 2024:
Akira: BH and Inheritance channels only.
Chessking: BH channel only.
cityscapes: BH channel only.
Tea Guzzler: BH channel only.
TTTech, Ivar, abriel: nothing. not in BH nor the other channels. This last batch of players do not actively contribute to discussion, nor to resources, they swing by whenever a tour starts up and clean house because they're good at the game, and there is nothing wrong with that! But there's no significant difference between these people and other "tour players" like hariyana grande, stareal, and Lily except that one batch has put the time in to learn BH and the other batch hasn't, and logistically I think it's too much to ask players to pick up BH on the fly with such a scarcity of both time and resources. We do not have 16 viable BH clickers and patching up that deficit with new players is realistically not happening whereas we can get battle-ready MNM (or even GG) players sorted in a day.

TL;DR having accessible tiers leads to having high level games. Gatekeeping "tour players" and tribalism does not.

that one fixed bo3 idea legit sounds like it could be cool
also i've been watching discussion, and yeah, bh pool has kinda shriveled up

 

[Eledyr]

Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in: We've seen multiple instances now where at least one of the players in a matchup isn't available for the battle and a sub would resolve the situation, but neither manager is available to do it in time to avoid an activity call. Should we allow managers to designate this authority to one of their players after the auction?

Speaking as a former manager, I think what would be best is that any player in a given team can sub in a player if both managers are away. I insist on this, the managers's opinion takes precedence over the rest of the team, and this should only be used in the extreme case of both being away. This is something that has been used in the past (in Ubers Winter League, actually), and which worked well. This is food for thought obviously, I'd understand if managers feel not safe letting the rest of their team designating a sub.

 

[UT]

Hello, here is the summary of changes that the forum mods + hosts are planning to enact based on this thread:

• We will be adding a binding "tiers not played" option to player signups
  • It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less
  • It will not be binding during playoffs
  • "tiers played / preferred" will also still be included in signups, but will be non-binding
• The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"
  • Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
  • All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
  • Duplicate picks will be allowed
• Activity calls will have a few changes:
  • Each team will have a pingable role, and we will be adding an #ompl channel to OMcord specifically for games / activity calls
    • We will require managers join OMcord
    • We will not require players join OMcord to participate, but obviously it will put you at disadvantge for act calls
  • To start the 30 minute timer on an act call, you must ping the other team's role (not just the managers) in the #ompl channel to alert them
  • During an act call, any player on the team may make a substitution if the managers are unavailable
    • If a manager is available, their decision takes precedent
  • "tiers not played" is still binding
• During the auction, managers may designate one of their drafted players as a third manager

Things we are not changing:

• Minimum team size (4 subs, 12 total players)
• Budget (100k) and manager self-buy price (13.5k, both managers may buy themselves)
• No retains

Thing still up in the air:

• There is currently a poll on this thread about the final tier in the bo3 slot (alongside AAA and STAB); if you feel strongly about BH vs MnM, be sure to vote!

Leaving this unlocked in case there is significant objection to these changes or you want to advocate for your bo3 preference, otherwise, these be the rules.

 

[Isaiah]

Thing still up in the air:

• There is currently a poll going in OMcord about the final tier in the bo3 slot (alongside AAA and STAB); if you feel strongly about BH vs MnM, be sure to vote!

This is now a poll at the top of this thread instead. Go and vote there!

 

[BoingK]

I'm spitballing here

We will be adding a binding "tiers not played" option to player signups

• It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less

The "not binding for less than 4k" feels a bit odd, let's say (extreme example that won't happen) Isaiah signs up with AAA in his tiers not played and goes for less than 4k. He can now freely play AAA and the managers have done a number on the others. I don't think there's anyone scummy enough to do this, but this bullet point feels unnecessary and odd.

e:

The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"

• Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
• All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
• Duplicate picks will be allowed

I much preferred methods where striking is involved, in theory this removes the lopsided matchups and makes the tiebreaker more "exciting". Assumably duplicate picks means if teams have the same pick (ie they both pick BH) then there would be two of those slot in the tiebreaker. Fixed AAA slot also feels lame, since any team with a stronger AAA slot will immediately have an edge in the playoffs.

Activity calls will have a few changes
During the auction, managers may designate one of their drafted players as a third manager

Agree with all of these

There is currently a poll on this thread about the final tier in the bo3 slot (alongside AAA and STAB); if you feel strongly about BH vs MnM, be sure to vote!

Where's the "Drop Bo3" option

 

[Ren]

• The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"
  • Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
  • All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
  • Duplicate picks will be allowed

if there's a tiebreaker I expect both teams to pick AAA so we can have an AAAAAAAAA tiebreaker.

 

[willdbeast]

I much preferred methods where striking is involved, in theory this removes the lopsided matchups and makes the tiebreaker more "exciting".

Agreed, when you pick a slot you're trying to pick the slot that's most unbalanced (in your favour) and when you're striking you're doing the opposite and trying to remove the slot that's most unbalanced (against you) so you should end up left with slots that are pretty even between the teams and have a more exciting tiebreaker. But looks like it's decided now anyway so ig this is something I'll restate in a year.

 

[iLiekMudkipz_]

things learned from this thread so far:
1: i need to learn AAA
2: bh is almost a dead format

 

[Fc]

Hello, here is the summary of changes that the forum mods + hosts are planning to enact based on this thread:

• We will be adding a binding "tiers not played" option to player signups
  • It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less
  • It will not be binding during playoffs
  • "tiers played / preferred" will also still be included in signups, but will be non-binding

4k thing is a very bad idea imo, it is easy to exploit and actually puts more strain on managers than it would help. It was removed from officials for a reason, people are actually encouraged to price fix and sign up for random tiers this way so you're either super cheap and can play whatever or managers have to immediately .4.5 to keep you outside of the price range to play any meta, in which case they get stuck with a player outside of where they're best. It just makes it so people can sign up for whatever and whoever can type .4 the fastest gets so much benefit, and whoever types .4.5 gets none of it but prevents the other team from having that. If we aren't freeing retains bc they are abused for benefit (bad logic free retains) then this surely shouldn't be added.

The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"

• Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
• All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
• Duplicate picks will be allowed

Only thing I like here is duplicate picks which should always be allowed, but the other 2 I don't like. Higher seed should pick last in the event of a tiebreak, only for either tiebreak to make poffs or a seeding tie with points and differential should they pick at the same time. It gives more incentive to placing a higher seed rather than just locking poffs and waiting and I think that is always a good thing. Most tours do it that way and I think this should be the same. I still think random = striking > any third option for tiebreak. I mentioned it in my third post but locking AAA puts so much emphasis on it because if you don't have a top tier AAA player you're starting at a disadvantage in a tiebreak where the other team also gets to pick their preferred tier, which can still be another AAA slot. This makes drafting harder since you have to prepare specifically AAA in case of tiebreaks, whereas random is a more neutral way to select a first meta for 2 teams. Striking is also fair, as you'll naturally end up in a fairly neutral tier since the teams would strike their opponents best so it would be something neither would have as big an advantage in as a set starter for every tiebreak so this is fine too.

Things we are not changing:

• No retains

Free retains. Makes a better tournament series for the reasons I mentioned and the reasons everywhere else has them. The movement will continue.

Thing still up in the air:

• There is currently a poll on this thread about the final tier in the bo3 slot (alongside AAA and STAB); if you feel strongly about BH vs MnM, be sure to vote!

I think mnm fits in more so I voted for it, BH does have an entry barrier but idt it's as high as you'd expect once you start figuring it out, but it's definitely there moreso than any other OM maybe aside from PiC in the tournament. Some people either don't have the time or the want to commit to learning a meta with as many options as BH and mnm plays more similar to a standard tier like AAA and STAB do since all the mons still have the same moves and you know exactly what each mega stone does to a set. I think it's the better option.

 

[Greybaum]

Thinking on it more, I don't think an exception needs to be made for players, whether they're 3k or 4k or 16k. If they signed up saying they didn't want to play a tier then they shouldn't be expected to play it even in a sub scenario. Also, you're required to have at minimum four subs on a team, so this is only an issue if 1- your player doesn't show up 2- your only available subs are people who explicitly put "i do not want to play this tier" on their sign-up for the tier in question. This is an incredibly rare scenario and if all the possible solutions are bringing up potential problems with pricefixing maybe we're better off just not making exceptions for low price players?
Frankly I don't think any tier is going to have a significant chunk of the playerbase outright stating they don't want to play it in their sign-up, and if there is then I think its inclusion in the tour should be reassessed and "can we find a sub this week" is only a minor problem in comparison.

 

[Sylvi]

Hello, here is the summary of changes that the forum mods + hosts are planning to enact based on this thread:

• We will be adding a binding "tiers not played" option to player signups
  • It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less
  • It will not be binding during playoffs
  • "tiers played / preferred" will also still be included in signups, but will be non-binding
• The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"
  • Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
  • All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
  • Duplicate picks will be allowed
• Activity calls will have a few changes:
  • Each team will have a pingable role, and we will be adding an #ompl channel to OMcord specifically for games / activity calls
    • We will require managers join OMcord
    • We will not require players join OMcord to participate, but obviously it will put you at disadvantge for act calls
  • To start the 30 minute timer on an act call, you must ping the other team's role (not just the managers) in the #ompl channel to alert them
  • During an act call, any player on the team may make a substitution if the managers are unavailable
    • If a manager is available, their decision takes precedent
  • "tiers not played" is still binding
• During the auction, managers may designate one of their drafted players as a third manager

Things we are not changing:

• Minimum team size (4 subs, 12 total players)
• Budget (100k) and manager self-buy price (13.5k, both managers may buy themselves)
• No retains

Thing still up in the air:

• There is currently a poll on this thread about the final tier in the bo3 slot (alongside AAA and STAB); if you feel strongly about BH vs MnM, be sure to vote!

Leaving this unlocked in case there is significant objection to these changes or you want to advocate for your bo3 preference, otherwise, these be the rules.

1. I get the intention that the hosts want to make every game every week happen and your target is that e.g. 3-4k AAA bench player can be slotted into BH to avoid Act. And in all honesty they will face (most likely) a main with no experience, since there is a reason they had BH in "tiers not played". The game gonna be low quality, the player might feel bad so the team and overall the quality of the tour goes down b, that. My point is players have good reasons to decide which tier they don't wanna play and doesn't matter e.g. if they are 3-4k AAA superstar or 20k Mnm Superstar. Both are relatively much worse in BH against a main. Don't make it possible for managers to abuse that rule against player's wish. Signup wisely your tiers as a player.
2. Elaborate please what "managers unavailable" means in context of every player can make the sub call. That sounds the loophole for trolling.
3. If a tier is only.present once in a regular week, it should not be present twice in tiebreaker. That doesn't add up in planning for the tour and just skyrocket AAA player prizes since everyone would need a good fallback AAA beside your main and bo3 slot while needing good builders (yes AAA can happen thrice in tiebreaker). Either make on slot like AAA standard for 3rd tier while not being to be picked for 1st and 2nd pick or make the slot standard 3rd pick which has two slots every week so you can choose it again for 1st and 2nd Pick
4. Let higher seed pick their tier second for tiebreak, higher place finish should be rewarded

 

[willdbeast]

1. Let higher seed pick their tier first for tiebreak, higher place finish should be rewarded

Picking tier first in tiebreaker is a disadvantage

 

[Sylvi]

Picking tier first in tiebreaker is a disadvantage

Myb, meant the other way around sorry

 

[Ren]

It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less

I get the intention is to grant managers flexibility but their responsibility is to their players before anything else, and that includes drafting so that players don't have to go beyond what they want to do for the sake of the team. Adding this exception will only just give other teammates a reason to guilt trip the player into playing a meta they don't want and just create bad blood between them if the situation ever arises. Players should be protected by the rules. Either make this binding for everyone or do away with the binding entirely. Nobody goes in expecting to be a 3/3.5k player, but they do expect that saying they won't play a tier grants them protection from not having to play that tier encoded in the rules.

 

[UT]

We will be adding a binding "tiers not played" option to player signups

• It will not be binding for players drafted for 4k or less

We are striking the tiers not played exception; it will be binding for all players.

 

[Evie]

would like to voice support against a fixed AAA slot for tiebreakers, my reasons have mostly been stated already, but putting teams at a disproportionate disadvantage for having a worse AAA makes no sense. I get that AAA is supposed to be the flagship tier but making it this much more important is so unideal. I prefer striking but if we really want a fixed tiebreaker slot I think Bo3 is a drastically better choice

 

[Chessking345]

The tiebreaker format will updated to "each team picks one, and the third slot will be AAA"

• Teams will submit their picks simultaneously
• All eight formats, including bo3 and an additional AAA slot, are eligible picks
• Duplicate picks will be allowed

I think a lot of what I have to comment regarding this have been mentioned by other users already, namely
- including any striking of sorts prior to picks removes the most unbalanced matchups making for tighter and more exciting tbs, this can apply to both formats with fixed tier and without, see my previous post
- fixed slot not bo3 leads to overemphasis on the tier and inflates prices for that tier, fixed bo3 has lesser issues as akira mentioned prior
- duplicate meta slots sounds incredibly imbal when no tier is present twice during normal rounds (dont think this needs a lot of explanation one team can have an extra capable player). this is worsened by fixed slot aaa as well because it forces teams to at minimum draft 2 capable aaa players (+ bo3 as well) when reg season only has 1 aaa slot

If complete ties during regular season happen and there is a preference to not rely on rng to favour one team you can either
- Do a SB tiebreak score, basically the sum of the scores of other teams multiplied by the match result (so 1 for win, .5 for tie), this should be rarely tied again
- make microadjustments to the strike pick order to balance it out more, e.g. if no fixed tier then the team with one less strike gets second pick of tier; if fixed tier then could make second pick get the worse order in ban (idk if its first or second) or have teams submit order of metas for picks and if the picks are the same then ignore and go down.

 

[Ren]

lots of feedback going on here but I just wanted to voice what a good idea this thread was. it's a really incredible change to have a focused discussion on ompl, the tournament structure and stuff like that. feedback being listened to and the changes that leadership are making based off of community input is something that's always been needed but imo never been done super well up until now. hope to see more of this

 

[Fissure]

If we are still discussing opinions about stuff, then I'd like to say that I'm in favor of Bo3 over AAA if we are still doing a fixed slot for TB for 2 reasons:
1. If we are going out of our way to do a Bo3 slot this OMPL, then we should be getting our money's worth out of the slot (both literally and figuratively)
2. As a spectator, I'd rather see a Bo3 than just an AAA game.

I have no opinion on striking vs not striking for TB (or whatever other TB system), I only care about what the fixed slot is (if we are still doing one). No opinion on anything else really.

 

[Career Ended]

I'd like to chime in with a potential solution for tb with regards to fixed slot bo3 v aaa v the world.
Tiebreak has 3 games: Two of them are chosen through the picks system that Sylvi, Fc and others have pretty much nailed down, duplicate picks is also fine I think, higher seed picks second.
My proposal is that the 3rd "fixed tier" is just a simpler version of this picks system. It's pretty simple, the fixed tier will be one of the bo3 tiers. The lower seed slashes once, the higher seed slashes once and the remaining tier is our fixed tier.

Since lower seed managers have to submit pick first for the other two games, they simply submit their slash for the fixed tier at the same time. Then higher seed managers submit their picks.

Since it's unfair to have a bo3 slot play in tiebreak at all, and people seem pretty keen to have a fixed slot and include the higher seed getting advantage, I believe this proposal would solve this. Having AAA be a designated fixed slot does drive up the price of AAA players arbitrarily, as was pointed out earlier. But Stab and Mnm/Bh(whoever is the other bo3 tier) also get their prices pushed up in draft as you will likely have to field a player playing that tier twice every week. Since these tiers already require managers to plan to have multiple players for these slots, it seems fine to have this translate to playoffs tiebreakers.