Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Obviously not a draft main, but my experience with SS NatDex drafts have involved allowing certain cut moves like pursuit - is that nonexistent in the Smogon scene? I personally think banning all cut moves somewhat defeats the purpose of a NatDex draft, but I would be fine with this arrangement if that's what the community over here is used to.
I have no clue how to reply to specific things but I just wanna clarify a few points on my post:
- Yes I am advocating for one Galar Dex and one SS Natdex slot. Don't see how its "goofy", they're two different metas entirely. Also drafting is one of the most fun parts of the tour and I really dont think its a big deal if there are more drafts going on. The teams last season were massive (think my team had like 14 people), I honestly think it can be handled fine. If we wanna up the timer rules or something to adjust thats okay. I think the enthusiasm of the new format itself should beat minor drafting inconveniences.
- SS Natdex should not ever fully replace Galar dex. Ever.
- My argument that SS gets more signups then USUM or ORAS is not as much an offensive argument for SS to be the second slot on the basis of 20+ more signups, but rather a defensive argument against the notion that SS is some agreed upon bad format that no one wants to play. People *clearly* want to play it. I don't see how this is disputable. Yes, I'm unconvinced by this anecdotal evidence that people say they dont like it or that folks cant personally make a list of anyone who wants to play it. This isn't 20 questions. Just don't play it if you don't like it. We clearly have the numbers for it regardless.
- If there truly are grievances against SwSh, then lets have a conversation about how to make improvements. That was my goal in building off of PZZs tiering critique.
- I give no shit on cut moves vs no cut moves for the SS Natdex option. Ban hidden power and allow the rest? Idk, what did the recent tournament do? I have a ton of friends who have been enjoying it and its ruleset.
Originally when posting I didn’t know cut moves were allowed, after knowing this ss Natdex should definitely not be a tier unless it gets altered. Everyone is talking about how it was the most played when current gen but when it was EVERY competitive league/ tournement (Trickhouse Tour/Cash Gang/DGBA/LD/Trickhouse/ The list goes on) had no cut moves allowed so the argument is just inconsistent.
Also while Swsh Natdex was the preferred format I would just like to say it definitely wasn’t fancied or anything like that. It was the lesser of two evils and no one wasn’t going to not play the current generation in draft league so they gravitated to the “better” one. I would also like to point out that swsh got so boring to the point where almost all leagues shifted to multi gen to avoid playing solely it. Personally I’d just like to see it overtake ss gdex as a format (maybe this season maybe next.) Regardless if Natdex swsh is even considered to be a playable tier it definitely needs cut moves banned none of that garbage no hp bans and suit shit allowed NOTHING.
Also why do people (ahem… mainly swsh players) keep using this dumb argument of u can’t favor an old gen or its weird or whatever like why not? how the fuck does that make any sense?
Something to note is I wouldn’t take tier signups for the tours to heart. Majority of players especially ones who aren’t likely to get drafted just check multiple tiers to be diverse and make themself look better to the captains. I know myself and many many other tour players just check all the tiers (beside vgc) (fuck vgc) available
Hi there! Some progress on this thread based on mod conversations - we've been keeping up w/ the thread and have been super appreciative of all the folks weighing in!
Open conversations:
We'd like to lock in the additional draft for tiers that have one slot in our tour, as seen in Hacker's post. There wasn't a ton of discussion here, but what discussion there was seemed to be positive. Unless there's a push against, we want to set this down in stone.
Regarding the 8th slot, we’re open to discussion regarding other options but the mod team are leaning towards one of ORAS2, USUM2, SS ND, or a flex slot. This flex slot could either be a cycling system (W1 SS, W2 USUM, W3 ORAS, W4 SS…) or a flex slot where the lower seed picks the tier (and a coin is flipped in the event of a tie); these aren’t the only ways a flex slot could be ran but they’re the ones we’re currently leaning towards, if other options gain traction we will consider them. We intend to put a poll up on Friday, but would like to hear the community’s thoughts on a flex slot and how it would work as there’s no clear direction on how a flex slot could function.
New conversations:
We want to change midseason FAs to 10 FAs for SV, and 8 for every other tier. In the past, it was 10 for SV, 8 for SS, and 5 for other tiers (to my recollection.) This is a more minor thing, but we'd like to see what folks think about this change.
Retains? As the second DCL, we now have the question of whether or not retains should exist. We'd rather not boggle in the minutiae of how the retains would function (see below if you want info), other than a maximum of 3 (including both manager self-buys and retains), as we're mostly just curious about whether or not they're something folks want to see in the tournament overall.
In a similar vein, we'd love to know what folks think about creating avenues for dynasties, either locking in winning team identities or by over the course of a few years creating a standing lineup of team names that do not change.
Just so we're all on the same page format wise for some of the set in stone formats that the nitty gritty could be worked out: SV's Tera system will be Tera Preview with 2 captains totaling 25 points or less. USUM will have 2 Z-Captains per draft. VGC will be Regulation F with Tera Preview. Once manager signups go up, this isn't open for further changing, so if you've got a bone to pick with something here, do so.
Of note:
We want to make it explicitly clear early on: if you are banned from the server you will not be allowed to sign up. We will not yank people off teams if they get banned from our server (other than like, forum bans, obviously) midway through the tournament, but if you are banned from the server or the friend you intend to play with is banned from the server, now would be a really good time to appeal that here.
For those curious what retains and dynasties are:
Dynasties are a team tour feature where team identities are locked from year to year. Either when a team wins a tournament and then is locked, or over a few years the non-meme/one-time team names. For example, Land Before Timer as the DCL1 winners would be locked in as one of the team identities going forward.
Retains are when teams can build off of previous years' successes by bringing back a couple of players from last year. The price increases to lock them onto your team, and between them and manager self-buys you only have three total, but retains offer considerable reward for cultivating talent and finding up-and-coming new players. Additionally, retains help provide manager duos who are not at level of playing in DCL to not start at a deficit as a result. Any player under 10k immediately becomes 10k, and then any player above costs 3k*number of years retained. So, a 3k player would cost 10k on their first retain, 16k on their second, and 25k if they are retained for three years in a row. A 15k player would cost 18k on first year, 24k on their second year, and 33k if they're retained for a third year.
Ok no shitpost this time but still Mews runback let’s go!
I think a flex slot with some sort of team choice makes the most sense as the decision for the last slot with the given extra drafts in each of the 1 slot tiers. Otherwise I think drafting 3 teams for each of those likely would not feel rewarding having to draft 16 teams or 19 if SS ND was the decided upon last format. I think regardless of format viability drafting 19 teams across 6 different formats in a week would be ridiculous.
Dynasties as a system seems unnecessary. If captains want to play under the same team name they can still do so or if any of their former players want to take up the mantle they are also free to. Being forced into representing a dynasty or perpuating the same captains to maintain them does not sound like a healthy system. Many teams in DPL still hold a strong season over season legacy despite no enforced system.
That leads into the idea of a retaining system which makes no sense to run without dynasties as it would otherwise give the returning teams an advantage going into the next.
(speaking for myself, not on behalf of the mod team)
I think including a flex slot based on managers choosing it would be a terrible decision that I don't really understand how anyone could get behind. I think this for a few reasons
a) You are drafting players based on what the tiers played could be, not what they are. I don't think this sounds like terrible as a reason against it as first glance but I think it ends up being just a massive pain in the ass to managers during the auction. As it stands right now you only really need one sub per format but this forces you to have 2 servicable subs per format incase it gets doubled up and one of your players is busy bc something come up for them IRL (which does happen and isn't super uncommon). This does reward people for drafting subs that are versatile across the board but why should you focus on buying all around subs instead of the strongest players for each tier you can buy. People also don't want two VGC slots right? Have fun drafting 3 unless you decide to open it to every singles tier and actually chose to alienate the VGC playerbase for no good reason.
b) There is no fair way to actually choose who gets to pick the extra tier. I think this is self-explanatory but there isn't a fair way to choose this. Week 1 you actually just have to coinflip it, but after that you could say the lower seed gets to pick the tier. But wait ties happen and aren't that uncommon at all so you're stuck having to coinflip this anyways and just randomly give teams an advantage over another team!
c) Player enjoyment may take a hit. If people could randomly choose an extra game of a tier to be played it forces people to play in their non main tier which could both result in players having less fun and it could lead to the games being less competitive as a result. Mons is mons and if you're good at the game and can do well in one tier you can do good in the other but the dynamics between each gen are different and require different skillsets. And people typically do like to stick to one gen more than the other as a result of them just preferring it over another and thats fine and see no reason to punish people for it if they would rather stick to one gen. Also, if this wasn't true people wouldn't bother drafting established mainers in each tier and just draft strong overall players instead of specialists.
d) Lineups. Lineups should stay due Sunday night and you might want to choose a different tier depending on how your player performs. Also, you physically can't do this unless you make the deadline Monday anyways because you would have to see who the lower seed is first. "Just send your lineup in advance based on what the tiers could be" That sounds stupid and it is stupid. You shouldn't have to think about 4 possible theoreticals and it would be much easier for everyone involved if there was just a normal, fixed slot.
e) Competitive merit. I've talked with others and one of the more common themes seems to be that doing this somehow makes the tournament more competitive and increases skill expression somehow? If anything I think this has the exact opposite result and people would despise this format after a singular season of playing it. DPL made it so there were 6 fixed slots to get rid of the nightmare of just randomly rewarding a team every week and thats not exactly on the table this year for DCL. But anyways is there any skill expression that somehow justifies this decision instead of just having a fixed second USUM or introducing SS ND into the tour? I don't find picking tiers based on who your opponent is particularly skillful or at least people are just bad at it considering the amount of people who picked an extra tier in the DPL season jut to end up losing the extra game in that slot anyways lol. I don't find drafting all around subs skillful when you could be using your money on more talented players for specific slots or buying an extra sub for a tier which you might just not end up needing anyways. At best I truly think this makes the tournament less competitive, and at worst I think it leads to a noticably worse experience for everyone involved.
Only way I personally could seriously entertain the idea of a flex slot is if it was decided beforehand what the extra tier each week would be
I think this because it takes away the randomness of there randomly being an extra game of x tier per week and it actually lets the managers know what the hell they are drafting for instead of guessing or buying unnecesary slots that they might not end up needing in the first place for no reason other than a randomly chosen flex slot. It also saves you the trouble of having to change the lineup deadline to monday and having the weeks up late every week.
JUST DOUBLE UP ANY OLDGEN, PREFERABLY SM OR ORAS BC 2 SS IS UNPOPULAR AND IF A FLEX SLOT IS INTRODUCED ITS BACK ANYWAYS. SS ND2 is still also a fine option IMO
I was pretty against the concept of dynasties when it first came up in our discussion but its grown on me over time. Same basically goes to retains and you can't really do one without the other. I don't entirely think they should exist this season but if it is something that the community ends up supporting thats cool and I think it could easily be implemented for DCL 3 if we can actually start developing dynasties or whtever. Only downsides are being locked into team names but TBH I don't think its a huge deal as long as the community comes up with actual good team names / franchises and that you get less people in the player pool but it does reward good scouting so i think there is some form of competitive merit to it.
That leads into the idea of a retaining system which makes no sense to run without dynasties as it would otherwise give the returning teams an advantage going into the next.
for what it’s worth, retains would be available to any team if implemented, regardless of the dynasty stuff, but new teams would be given a randomized no-longer-represented team to retain from. For example if LBT, Armory, Foxes, and Mews returned, then the four new teams that weren’t those would be randomized between Girlbosses, Horsepower, Fishermen, and Barbies to determine their retain pools. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by returning advantage, but I just wanted to clarify in case there was a miscommunication on my part.
for what it’s worth, retains would be available to any team if implemented, regardless of the dynasty stuff, but new teams would be given a randomized no-longer-represented team to retain from. For example if LBT, Armory, Foxes, and Mews returned, then the four new teams that weren’t those would be randomized between Girlbosses, Horsepower, Fishermen, and Barbies to determine their retain pools. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by returning advantage, but I just wanted to clarify in case there was a miscommunication on my part.
The best way to do these is to have it rotate weekly on a set schedule. I believe Odin suggested Gens 6-8 weeks 1-3, VGC Week 4, then Gens 6-8 again weeks 5-7. That sounds like a solid system, and avoids the pitfalls of captains not knowing before draft, or having to coinflip decisions. Playoffs higher seed picks.
Dynasties:
I think these add a fun historical element to a team competition, and enshrine them in a hall of legends that will be seen every time a new team tour comes around.
Retains:
I've never liked retains in any league, I think they punish new managers and make drafts too static. Teams are already rewarded for good scouting by getting good players cheaply, why should that continue to future team tours?
After some discussion on the discord server, i decided to throw my two cents on the matter based on what was discussed in general chat.
First and foremost, would like to express my opinion on the original topic which was the extra format to include. Shockingly i think USUM or ORAS are the clear options at the moment due to the community presence they still have in the format and because the other options Just cant quite match with those two. VGC2 is worth considering for following seasons but It has not reached that point yet, so maybe next year; SV Natdex is very popular but its largely disliked metagame by the most of the DCL playerbase for a number of reasons as shown in this threads; SS Natdex leads to an undesirable metagame due to the inconsistencies between what Smogon and what the Draft community views a ND metagame should have (i.e cut moves) and Low tier is far too underexplored while not being different enough to standard SV.
Now we have the new flex option that was discussed. Alternating Formats, If fixed, can lead to a number of benefits from rewarding auctioning, rewarding the addition of extra drafts that has been asked as well as pleasing different parts of the playerbase. A schedule like that would be consisting of something like:
Week 1: Extra ORAS
Week 2: Extra USUM
Week 3: Extra SWSH
Week 4: Extra VGC
Week 5: Extra ORAS
Week 6: Extra USUM
Week 7: Extra SWSH
The order can come down to the Hosts preference but Playoffs would give the extra choice to the higher seed like tipically happens in Draft tournaments like DPL, which i assume most of the playerbase is ok with since the tour has ran for 8 seasons now. This would be quite the experiment by itself so i wouldnt be surprised If people would prefer a fixed 8th slot every week like It has been discussed but experimentation is sometimes worth It.
While im here, will touch on dynasty/retains. Not a fan but not opposed to testing. Personally i would not implement It this year yet as i assume theres already a lot of experimental things in place at the moment and It messes with the uniqueness dynamic that Draft is known for.
TLDR: USUM player wants USUM, thinks the Flex Slot with fixed formats would be very nice, SV Natdex should not be considered at all and retains gets in the way of Drafts uniqueness
From the various conversations ive seen, I think the best solution to please everyone would be to have the set flex slot for the season or do the DPL format (each team picks a tier every week). Has been working really well for the 2 seasons of DPL and also adds a layer of strategy overall in terms of auctioning and slotting
Idk if this has been stated but you pay a higher retained price for each person that comes out of your team’s budget before auction. You’re essentially just getting the right of first refusal if you scout well the season prior (and the retainee consents to be on the same team again). The benefits of retaining someone mean you have less budget during the auction because you’ve already purchased someone (in the same way managers who self-buy cost their team budget)
In support of a fixed flex slot for the 8th game. 2x 678 and 1x vgc, with the higher seed picking the bonus tier in playoffs, was discussed a lot in the discord server, this seems best to please the most people. Incentivizes having more players capable of playing each format which was a big pressure point for vgc, where 1 vgc player was kind of hung out to dry, but in this case you would want to draft a second for that week as well as potential playoff matchups.
As for dynasties/retains, dynasties I have no opinion really, I think the fun team names are a big part of draft but as long as people like the dynasty identities it's a non-issue. Retains though I don't think make a lot of sense in draft. The formats themselves change often year to year and player performance varies highly even outside of that, leading to retains feeling kind of random and not really adding much to the tour in my opinion.
(speaking for myself, not on behalf of the mod team)
I think including a flex slot based on managers choosing it would be a terrible decision that I don't really understand how anyone could get behind. I think this for a few reasons
a) You are drafting players based on what the tiers played could be, not what they are. I don't think this sounds like terrible as a reason against it as first glance but I think it ends up being just a massive pain in the ass to managers during the auction. As it stands right now you only really need one sub per format but this forces you to have 2 servicable subs per format incase it gets doubled up and one of your players is busy bc something come up for them IRL (which does happen and isn't super uncommon). This does reward people for drafting subs that are versatile across the board but why should you focus on buying all around subs instead of the strongest players for each tier you can buy. People also don't want two VGC slots right? Have fun drafting 3 unless you decide to open it to every singles tier and actually chose to alienate the VGC playerbase for no good reason.
b) There is no fair way to actually choose who gets to pick the extra tier. I think this is self-explanatory but there isn't a fair way to choose this. Week 1 you actually just have to coinflip it, but after that you could say the lower seed gets to pick the tier. But wait ties happen and aren't that uncommon at all so you're stuck having to coinflip this anyways and just randomly give teams an advantage over another team!
c) Player enjoyment may take a hit. If people could randomly choose an extra game of a tier to be played it forces people to play in their non main tier which could both result in players having less fun and it could lead to the games being less competitive as a result. Mons is mons and if you're good at the game and can do well in one tier you can do good in the other but the dynamics between each gen are different and require different skillsets. And people typically do like to stick to one gen more than the other as a result of them just preferring it over another and thats fine and see no reason to punish people for it if they would rather stick to one gen. Also, if this wasn't true people wouldn't bother drafting established mainers in each tier and just draft strong overall players instead of specialists.
d) Lineups. Lineups should stay due Sunday night and you might want to choose a different tier depending on how your player performs. Also, you physically can't do this unless you make the deadline Monday anyways because you would have to see who the lower seed is first. "Just send your lineup in advance based on what the tiers could be" That sounds stupid and it is stupid. You shouldn't have to think about 4 possible theoreticals and it would be much easier for everyone involved if there was just a normal, fixed slot.
e) Competitive merit. I've talked with others and one of the more common themes seems to be that doing this somehow makes the tournament more competitive and increases skill expression somehow? If anything I think this has the exact opposite result and people would despise this format after a singular season of playing it. DPL made it so there were 6 fixed slots to get rid of the nightmare of just randomly rewarding a team every week and thats not exactly on the table this year for DCL. But anyways is there any skill expression that somehow justifies this decision instead of just having a fixed second USUM or introducing SS ND into the tour? I don't find picking tiers based on who your opponent is particularly skillful or at least people are just bad at it considering the amount of people who picked an extra tier in the DPL season jut to end up losing the extra game in that slot anyways lol. I don't find drafting all around subs skillful when you could be using your money on more talented players for specific slots or buying an extra sub for a tier which you might just not end up needing anyways. At best I truly think this makes the tournament less competitive, and at worst I think it leads to a noticably worse experience for everyone involved.
Only way I personally could seriously entertain the idea of a flex slot is if it was decided beforehand what the extra tier each week would be
I think this because it takes away the randomness of there randomly being an extra game of x tier per week and it actually lets the managers know what the hell they are drafting for instead of guessing or buying unnecesary slots that they might not end up needing in the first place for no reason other than a randomly chosen flex slot. It also saves you the trouble of having to change the lineup deadline to monday and having the weeks up late every week.
JUST DOUBLE UP ANY OLDGEN, PREFERABLY SM OR ORAS BC 2 SS IS UNPOPULAR AND IF A FLEX SLOT IS INTRODUCED ITS BACK ANYWAYS. SS ND2 is still also a fine option IMO
I was pretty against the concept of dynasties when it first came up in our discussion but its grown on me over time. Same basically goes to retains and you can't really do one without the other. I don't entirely think they should exist this season but if it is something that the community ends up supporting thats cool and I think it could easily be implemented for DCL 3 if we can actually start developing dynasties or whtever. Only downsides are being locked into team names but TBH I don't think its a huge deal as long as the community comes up with actual good team names / franchises and that you get less people in the player pool but it does reward good scouting so i think there is some form of competitive merit to it.
1. I strongly echo hackers thoughts on the flex slot. I think this is a terrible idea and there is no way to balance it. In particular, I agree with the first two points he made and refer to the discontent of the DPL player base this season in having the flex slots week-to-week. Complaints often mentioned the later time for prep and unnecessary delays, especially for Australian players who would only get their match ups Monday night or Tuesday morning. I think the only way to fairly include the flex slot is to have the tier known beforehand, whether it be USUM/ORAS/SS Natdex.
2. I like the FA changes, there definitely seemed to be too little last season. On a similiar topic of discussion, I think that 3 teams minimum for each gen should be the way moving forward. 2 teams each gen seems to result in the same boring cores because teams are afraid to take risks and ruin their drafts. I would be interested to see if this would foster more creativity in drafting moving forward.
3. Having not experienced retains I'm not sure about them. I will say that dynasties would have to be part of the system in some way. I'm not sure about the carry-over in terms of captain cores from last DCL but it would be unfair if some cores were more advantaged than others simply because they were able to retain players from previous seasons whereas new cores were unable to benefit in the same way. Maybe this is system to introduce in later seasons when the captain cores and franchises get more established.
On the topic of flex slots, I am very against one team picking a tier, since it creates a lot of imbalance based on when you face each opposing team in the schedule. You would get a significant advantage by playing harder teams early since you can rubber band by getting tier picks to bounce back. Rotating schedule also has the issue of schedule timing to a lesser extent because different teams will have different tiers they are proficient in, and you could play the best ORAS guys in an extra ORAS week and the best USUM guys in an extra USUM week etc. DPL format, where each team adds a tier, does not have the schedule bias. It does introduce the prep time issue, but I think that can be mitigated depending on what deadlines and scheduling policies are. For those reasons, I think if we do a flex slot, the best way to do it would be to have each team add a tier.
If the "each team adds a tier" format is not favorable and we think the issues would be too much, or if you really don't want the flex slot for reasons such as what Hacker described, having a fixed 8th slot is probably fine. I believe there has been ample discussion among many people here as to what that would be so I will not comment further. I guess my preference would be vgc > usum > oras > dont careafter that, but these have been discussed in detail in earlier posts so I just wanted to highlight it for whoever is keeping score.
On the topic of dynasties, I'm not super big on the idea. I think if teams want to run it back they can, but should also be allowed to rebrand, so I don't like imposing that restriction.
On the topic of retains, I am adamantly against retains as a whole. I think there's too many situations where people can get steals, which get balanced next season by the player being more expensive, and letting people retain eliminates the idea of starting with a clean slate and gives new cap cores a disadvantage. I am fully aware that there would be a price increase, but players can still be bought below value in some cases, and either way, there is an inherent advantage to buying players from the pool in advance before the auction because it helps with budgeting. I am aware that managers who buy in already have this sort of advantage, but I think also being able to buy players makes the playing field too unlevel. I sincerely hope this policy is not implemented.
I asked if flex slot was an option literally the day this thread was posted and a mod told me that it was a non-starter. Glad to see thats changed. I absolutely support a flex slot with the slots decided beforehand. The schedule Odin proposed looks best.
Addison0727 the last time swsh natdex was used in a serious competitive team tournament was 4 years ago. It was dropped in favor of galar dex for a reason. Galar is a much cleaner format since there's absolutely no question in what is legal or not. It's less power crept, which I'll admit is a smaller issue of swsh natdex anyways. I would very bigly advise against natdex appearing in DCL at all, especially not as a separate tier to galar where both are included.
Galar has been less popular within the niche community at the top due to the meta seeming repetitive and restrictive, both issues that were largely improved with recent tiering renovations in DPL. I haven't seen anyone leave a negative review of those changes (outside of skyhorse crying bc he can't use spectrier anymore) and I feel the tier is in a really healthy state going forward. All signals point to these changes being implemented in DCL as well. For this reason I'd be perfectly fine keeping the swsh 2 slot from last season personally.
I would also like to state once again, there is nothing wrong with bo7 and avoiding this whole mess of what extra tier to include. Lol.
When I spoke up in favour of SS Natdex, I did so thinking that the format would be with just megas and cut mons added back, without cut moves. I guess this shows how the format and its rules still vary from person to person and league to league. If cut moves were included, I would like to retract my support of the format.
To echo L5's opinion and my first post on this thread: there seems to be a lot of disagreement about the final format to include and no one has really put forward an argument that has really impressed me. It seems as though we are just picking off preference at the moment and each person's reasoning feels very arbitrary. Going to a BO7 would solve a lot of issues and rewards teams for regular season success in play offs. This is now the solution I would like to push going forward. For selfish personal reasons (I just think it's the best tier of the current options), I continue to support USUM if we were to include an 8th slot in a fixed tier.
Finally, I am adamantly against the idea of alternating formats. Using Odin's schedule as an example:
Week 1: Extra ORAS
Week 2: Extra USUM
Week 3: Extra SWSH
Week 4: Extra VGC
Week 5: Extra ORAS
Week 6: Extra USUM
Week 7: Extra SWSH
I think this is just a mess, to be honest. We all acknowledge we play a game which is heavily influenced by RNG. I'm not sure why we want to introduce more RNG factors into the mix. Different players have different skillsets and captains will draft rosters with tiers in mind. I do not like how where you play a team in the schedule would unfairly advantage or disadvantage you. Even comparing this with DPL where there are 2 flex slots, at the very least you can pick the slot that benefits you. Here, for example, you could roll a strong ORAS team whilst having strong USUM players but match up against another strong USUM team when the USUM week comes around, negating any advantage you might have. I'm sure the argument will be made that captains will know this in advance and can plan accordingly or 'mons is mons'. However, I think it is very difficult to plan for 4 different formats and makes some players play in the flex slot each week, which not many players probably want to do. I personally think there is a small pool of players who are good at all 3 of SWSH/USUM/ORAS, without even mentioning VGC, and this makes roster building difficult. I think the only fair way an alternating schedule would work is if we let teams pick a slot each, which means removing a current slot. Given the other 7 slots seem to be set in stone, this does not seem like a viable solution.
Retains: Very opposed to retains, last season's draft should have no impact on the current season. Dynasties: I'm a big fan of dynasties (without retains), it's really cool to see a team build up an identity over multiple years. However, if we go that route, I think there should be a stipulation that new captains can only use an existing team's name if they have a connection to that team. Having the team be completely different every year defeats the point of having a shared name. If a team name has no successor it can take a break, and a fun one-shot team or new dynasty can take its place. Two VGC Slots: I support having two vgc slots, but I want to push back on the idea that it is necessary due to vgc being an isolated slot. VGC is not particularly hard to learn, several singles players such as Darkrai, Pandaa, and FistToYourDoom have made the jump from singles to vgc and performed well. Speaking from personal experience, last DCL several players on my team who had very little experience with doubles were able to provide me and Trace with helpful mocks. Now even considering all of this there still is the valid concern that a vgc player ends up stuck on a team where no other player has any interest in vgc and they end up having to solo carry the slot. However, it is ultimately the duty of the captains to solve this either by supporting the slot themselves or drafting additional support.
I think SWSH NatDex should be implemented w/ cut moves banned. This has always been a difference between Smogon and Draft. NatDex OU features Z-moves, cut moves, etc. SWSH NatDex for the most part did not feature cut moves. I think this is less of a debate and more so a culture clash between smogon and draft, and I think it's pretty easy to remedy it by removing the cut moves. I am still deeply in favor of SWSH NatDex being included ftr.
As for flex slots, I personally think it's kinda bad for the reasons Hacker outlined, and I agree w/ him on it.
I also wanna reiterate that the notion that we can't pick which oldgens tier to give a second slot to is just, kinda weird? Doesn't really make a ton of sense? If we can remove the second Galar Dex SWSH slot, then it stands that there's no reason we shouldn't be able to add a second slot to a different tier. People didn't want to have a second SWSH tier, so it was removed and now we have this whole thread. If people want a second USUM or ORAS tier then that's the only reason we need to add one, for the exact same reason we chose to remove the slot from SWSH.
At the end of the day, we play this for fun, even if it's competitive. If people want a second USUM slot because that's what they want to play, we don't need to put on monocles and top hats and be like "Hmm, yes, well it would appear as if there is no fundamental difference between including a second slot of SWSH over a second slot of USUM or ORAS. After all, they are indubitably all equal, and thus choosing amongst them in a logical manner would be impossible." idk that whole schtick just feels tired. The support is clearly there for an USUM second slot. And while a lot of the old school ORAS players aren't active (or decided to get themselves server-banned), the USUM community is thriving. A lot of them are even in this thread. I see no reason to pretend that every pastgens tier is equal and they should all be balanced or something.
Preference: NatDex SWSH>Replace Galar Dex w/ NatDex SWSH & give USUM second slot>unban TDG (only reason to watch Galar Dex), keep Galar Dex, and add an USUM slot>Just Add USUM Slot>Just Add ORAS Slot>Add VGC Slot>Flex Spots>Anything else.
Also I don't like dynasties or retains. Don't think that's worth getting into though since it was said it's off the table this season anyways.
Edit: being told that dynasties and retains aren't off the table for this season. Well, they should be!
After some discussion on the discord server, i decided to throw my two cents on the matter based on what was discussed in general chat.
First and foremost, would like to express my opinion on the original topic which was the extra format to include. Shockingly i think USUM or ORAS are the clear options at the moment due to the community presence they still have in the format and because the other options Just cant quite match with those two. VGC2 is worth considering for following seasons but It has not reached that point yet, so maybe next year; SV Natdex is very popular but its largely disliked metagame by the most of the DCL playerbase for a number of reasons as shown in this threads; SS Natdex leads to an undesirable metagame due to the inconsistencies between what Smogon and what the Draft community views a ND metagame should have (i.e cut moves) and Low tier is far too underexplored while not being different enough to standard SV.
Now we have the new flex option that was discussed. Alternating Formats, If fixed, can lead to a number of benefits from rewarding auctioning, rewarding the addition of extra drafts that has been asked as well as pleasing different parts of the playerbase. A schedule like that would be consisting of something like:
Week 1: Extra ORAS
Week 2: Extra USUM
Week 3: Extra SWSH
Week 4: Extra VGC
Week 5: Extra ORAS
Week 6: Extra USUM
Week 7: Extra SWSH
The order can come down to the Hosts preference but Playoffs would give the extra choice to the higher seed like tipically happens in Draft tournaments like DPL, which i assume most of the playerbase is ok with since the tour has ran for 8 seasons now. This would be quite the experiment by itself so i wouldnt be surprised If people would prefer a fixed 8th slot every week like It has been discussed but experimentation is sometimes worth It.
While im here, will touch on dynasty/retains. Not a fan but not opposed to testing. Personally i would not implement It this year yet as i assume theres already a lot of experimental things in place at the moment and It messes with the uniqueness dynamic that Draft is known for.
TLDR: USUM player wants USUM, thinks the Flex Slot with fixed formats would be very nice, SV Natdex should not be considered at all and retains gets in the way of Drafts uniqueness
Throwing my support behind a flex slot for the 8th game for a lot of the same reasons Odin outlined. Plenty of mention on this thread for a return to BO7, and I think that's a larger format change I'd be sad seeing come back. Teams felt generally much less motivated toward the latter half of the regular season as the window grew more and more narrow for playoff potential compared to the BO8 system and more teams were vying for spots until the last week.
I think having one tier out of the 8 be cyclical will make sure managers are paying due attention to every tier (how many times have people noted in this thread how neglected VGC players were in DCL I?), especially important considering half the weekly games are currently 1-off format wise. The auction is what makes or breaks a season from a manager perspective, and including this flex system rewards managers who best understand the applicant pool, and is able to most efficiently manage their budget. Having the formats be declared ahead of time ensures no surprises during the regular season and I think is the only way this flex slot can work in its present state. I think the experimentation part of this is worth it, and is absolutely worth trying rather than the subjective approach of favoring one old gen over another. Ensuring players who are well rounded have value in team tournaments like this (with FIVE formats) is super important and opens up more value than the same 100 players who are generally seen as most proficient in any one tier. Being competent in more than one sphere is a worthy skill that should be cultivated. I do not think its worth spending time debating whether coin flips are equitable at all in deciding formats in a tournament like this so I won't discuss those. Higher seed in playoff having a distinguishable advantage by being able to pick the flex tier is also a worthy improvement over the simple "highest seed fights lowest seed in r1" or getting a bye.
Edit 1: To Hacker and Kcric’s points about rolling an unfavorable matchup versus an oras loaded team on an oras flex match week, I would strive to draft a team in which each member could positively contribute to their best tier’s prep regardless if it’s 1 or 2 matches that week… it’s a team environment and people shouldn’t shy away from playing a tier other than their best because you have a whole team to build with and practice against. It really boils down to how much work you and your team want to dedicate to the season.
I'll edit this as I think more about it, but for now that's all I got!
posting despite my previous one just to say i actually am currently in support of a rotating flex slot and think it would be a good add and i only oppose a flex slot with managers choosing what the extra tier each week is because that IS a bunch of trash nonsense which makes every part of the tour worse.
a good amount of my problems with a normal dpl like flex slot go away with it being fixed in advance. you actually get to know what you are buying slots for weekly, dont have to deal with annoying lineup shenanigans, etc. i understand the concerns with it feeling like you get an advantage solely based on what week you play a team but i just don't think its that big of a deal because
a) its only one slot
b) all managers are on an equal playing field with this anyways. you know you'll need an extra usum option 2 weeks
i also don't think going to bo7 should really be entertained. i think last year being bo8 was awesome and it kept the event interesting the entire way through because in week 7 literally every team could have made playoffs and that doesn't happen with bo7. i would very much so miss bo8 in this tour
so im only really between a flex slot with formats set in advance and an extra usum slot. im not like 100% against 8th slot being ss nd and i think people overstate how uncompetitive the format is if it has cut moves. it was just fine this year in PWS. im even down for allowing all cut moves including hidden power if we want to just allow everything. i also still strongly resonate with juke that if people just want an extra usum slot because thats what they want to see the most then that is more than fine.
so anyways flex slot with weeks set in advance > double usum/oras >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ss nd being included > idt anything else should be entertained
I feel like there's just no damage done if you double usum or oras. The pool is plenty fine for two players to slot in one of these tiers, and they're both very adaptable and easy for others to mock in. This would keep the g8 which is imo the best format to keep things close, and add a tier from what I can see from the posts no ones against unlike others such as natdex/low tier/vgc2 :]
posting despite my previous one just to say i actually am currently in support of a rotating flex slot and think it would be a good add and i only oppose a flex slot with managers choosing what the extra tier each week is because that IS a bunch of trash nonsense which makes every part of the tour worse.
a good amount of my problems with a normal dpl like flex slot go away with it being fixed in advance. you actually get to know what you are buying slots for weekly, don't have to deal with annoying lineup shenanigans, etc. i understand the concerns with it feeling like you get an advantage solely based on what week you play a team but i just don't think its that big of a deal because
a) its only one slot
b) all managers are on an equal playing field with this anyways. you know you'll need an extra usum option 2 weeks
i also don't think going to bo7 should really be entertained. i think last year being bo8 was awesome and it kept the event interesting the entire way through because in week 7 literally every team could have made playoffs and that doesn't happen with bo7. i would very much so miss bo8 in this tour
so im only really between a flex slot with formats set in advance and an extra usum slot. im not like 100% against 8th slot being ss nd and i think people overstate how uncompetitive the format is if it has cut moves. it was just fine this year in PWS. im even down for allowing all cut moves including hidden power if we want to just allow everything. i also still strongly resonate with juke that if people just want an extra usum slot because thats what they want to see the most then that is more than fine.
so anyways flex slot with weeks set in advance > double usum/oras >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ss nd being included > idt anything else should be entertained
I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this post. I would also like to add that having teams pick a tier will always give an advantage to the team that picked second, so I don't really understand the point about just being unlucky with the rotation for the week. The proposed solution is still advantageous toward one team. I also agree that there is no reason to overthink and pick a tier that is not usum/oras if those are what are most popular. Not everyone will end up being happy with whatever decision is made, but surely they can find some tier they enjoy playing in anyway with the tournament!
I wanted to make one last point about SwSh natdex because I believe there is a lot of silly brain rot regarding that tier. Cut moves are fine. Pursuit is genuinely a good addition to the game considering how hard it can be to counterplay some ghost matchups. Hidden power is not a strong move at all and you'll probably forget you can even use it if it is allowed. If you want to make the point that the meta that most draft players practiced in SwSh was without cut moves, I'm down for that mentality and having SwSh natdex with no cut moves, but come on. I feel like a lot of people never played legacy and it shows.
EDIT: Anyways, my take is pretty identical to hacker's, except I would prefer double usum/oras probably over flex slot with weeks set in advance.
I kinda love the idea of the last format being rotating betwixt the more recent older metagames, I think that gives a strong reason to cover everything in your roster and it makes the format more dynamic and interesting to both play and spectate week after week.
