• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

I agree with Eli that there should be some onus on regions to get enough signups to field their own roster. I’d love to see for next WC we just set the regions in stone and if you cant field a roster, you dont play the tour. My only concern with this is how we handle an odd number of teams. Regardless of what we decide to do, it seems pretty clear that this arbitrary merging of teams based on signups has led to superteams time and time again, and quite frankly it goes against the spirit of WC.
Theoretically, let’s say we do unmerge the teams, and if you can’t get enough people you don’t play, I. not opposed to the idea and i’ve seen enough on this thread saying that WC is less serious than PL, and how there should a tour that is somewhat serious that could be open to new 1v1 players. This in a way should be less gatekeeping towards newer players and to not have ourselves a super team simulator.

I know jad opened the idea to have play ins but i people were against it due to it dragging out the tour even longer but I really don’t see an issue with it otherwise if wc takes a direction like this.

As the aforementioned point about not playing if you don’t have enough players, this could be a way for people to go scout out new blood instead of ONLY relying on your top tier/mid tier guys to sign up.


If we’re really bringing up the propaganda of wc being a not so serious tour compared to pl because of shit like west + central merge before sign ups closed (mfs like zio and blurb would not sign up otherwise) and how mfs like to play all their games at the last minute (i could go on but you get the point) we should just embrace wc just being a “new blood” tt or just structure wc a lot differently going forward.

i wrote this in the shower btw
 
So obviously this tour has been mismanaged to a beyond egregious degree. To recap the grievances:
  • Unanimous vocal support for Bo7 from the established ss playerbase (people who care about their player experience and the meta they play) unfavored over input from the captains (people who are seeking to maximize their chances of winning the tour).
  • Conflicting region info which lead to a player who expected to be on the roster of one region to actually be a part of another that they don’t make the cut for.
  • Signups going up late but also before slots were finalized, with no sort of accompanying announcement.
  • General lack of transparency on who was involved with making decisions for this tour and how they were made. It seems to be the case that luser, the host of the tour and receiver of the most flac, was kept out of the loop of region discussions/other key decisions while lost heros, who is playing in the tour, was involved(??)
  • And of course, regions getting announced before signup close leading to the creation of a team with, at the very least, more star power than any other team in the tiers history.
Roster posts have already been made and doing anything to the regions at this stage is a non-starter (the tour would probably need to be pushed back a week after a region redraw and then either a team needs to be Deleted or +1 more week for a play-in).

At this point there is nothing that can be done that won’t leave a participant upset and feeling like this tour was not a worthwhile experience. That is simply the reality of the situation. What we can do is:

1. Continue the show
2. Cancel the tour and there probably won't be another teamtour until next year

Option 2 is honestly probably better from the POV of unbiased arbiter but I dunno like, personally I just want to play at this point? Is that so bad? We have like 4 teams with a 15-30% chance of beating westrel in a playoffs scenario and the potential reward of infinite clowning on B-tier players/C-tier ragebaiters like Blanched. No one will ever take a west-central win seriously either. Sounds like a pretty good cost-benefit ratio to me.
 
I think cancelling the tour is a pretty preposterous idea. I don't really have anything else to say, this second sentence is just here so my post doesn't get deleted for being a one-liner.
no it is not unless they revamp the tour entirely or just replace it with something else, former would be good. 1-2 months of prep time for a tour like this is MAYBE feasible but the faith of the tour usually depends on how much people wanna win the tour and based on how this tour has gone by over the past few years, it isn’t too asinine in my eyes
 
okay so i also wanted to speak a bit about these superteams that are incredibly unfair like US West+ Central alone could sweep WC and win easily on top of that you have Team Europe with a bit less stacked team but still being able to win it all with their depth there are no other team that can possibly compete team parity between 2nd and 3rd is too big honestly and Europe and West+ Central should be seperated you cant tell me that the best from South Europe and North Europe and same with west and central are not the overwhelming favorites mistakes should be fixed and this is the biggest one by far... I agree with SuperMemeBroz with his takes, also remember that WC isn't PL, where even if there is a superteam, there is less parity, therefore let's look at this from a competitive standpoint.
 
On behalf of forum mods and wc hosts I want to acknowledge our mistakes and apologise for the situation. We know just as well as anyone that we dropped the ball, and you all are right to be upset about it. We decided to merge West and Central because the individual teams were difficult to justify. This would've probably still been the case had we announced it after signups ended, but releasing the regions early should never have been allowed to happen. Although some inherent region imbalance in WC is to be expected, there were several steps that went wrong on our end which negatively affected the balancing between teams.

The decision will not be reversed and the tournament will move forward as planned. Instead we, as the forum staff team, wish to learn from this and avoid making such a mistake in a future iteration of this tournament. The mistake in our process was largely the fault of proper communication between the team and staff, and the team is currently reworking our proceedings internally to ensure that something like this does not happen again in the future. In the future we will aim for more transparency from not just the hosts, but the forum staff team as well, to ensure that the correct decisions are made and that our tournaments become the best version they can be. In terms of any similar future decisions we will publicly release the information and deadlines for these decisions prior to the deadline itself. Our priority is always to ensure that everyone enjoys each aspect of the circuits we put forth as much as possible, while keeping it competitive for everyone.

Lastly I wish to emphasize that we truly appreciate the feedback of everyone who has been posting either on here or in the discord. We understand that the frustration comes from the expectations that we failed to meet. I want to firmly apologize again, and I hope that we all can still make the most of this year's World Cup. As always, if you have any concerns or thoughts you wish to share you can do so publicly here, through the discord, or privately to either of the hosts and / or the other forum mods and you will always be heard.
 
Parts of this post are a bit rushed due to my wrist, I'm recovering but I can't afford to spend an eternity caring about details and phrasing yet
The stars align for me to post about a bunch of stuff at the same time so bear with me, I don't normally get involved with tour hosting that much but that doesn't mean I can't have thoughts and ideas about policy!

Team tour precedent
The first thing I want to talk about is setting some precedent or ground rules for team tour hosting stuff. Some of these I've had on my mind since PL (and I think I had one of them codified aswell) but now with WC not going expected is a good time to get this all down in writing. None of these are rules, these are suggestions for rules but if people like them we can treat this as precedent going forward.

Captains not showing up for draft
I ain't making the rules for this but we are in dire need of a protocol for this scenario...

Lineups
  • Deadline for lineup submission is the same every week
  • Lineups must be submitted to a groupchat (discord or smogon DM) between all tour hosts and all of the team's captains
  • Teams that haven't submitted their lineup by the deadline have their previous lineup re-used
  • In the event of a re-used lineup being illegal, the illegal parts are randomised by the hosts
    • Week 1 that means a fully randomised lineup.
    • If a single slot is illegal (eg due to changes in flex slots and tier locks) only that slot is randomised
    • In the event that none of the benched players can legally play a tier idk man I don't wanna set precedent for that, someone smarter can handle that scenario

Deadlines for (hosting) decisions
This was already mentioned by Arai above but going forward we should all make a clear effort to make sure it's always clear when (hosting) decisions are going to be made before it actually happens. That means announcing "Hey guys we're gonna release WC regions on [date]" so people have the opportunity to comment on the procedure and review host and tour staff decisions

WC regions
There's been a lot of thought about WC regions and "balancing" throughout the years and I think we can codify at least a portion of it to reduce the strain every year. The below is assuming at least 2 weeks of signups.
  • For region boundaries, especially when it comes to US states, follow smogon world cup precedent over 1v1 world cup precedent unless we have a clear reason not to. Consistency across the site is important and if we have to choose between blindly following precedents then I'd rather people are able to play for the same region in every wc they join
  • In general, prospective teams should be decided by the host at least a week before signups close. They may or may not publish these, but it's important that regions aren't split too close to signups closing to make it harder to arbitrarily split teams for balance reasons
  • Then when signups close teams from the prospective list (which should have more than 12 teams btw) can be merged until there are 12 left, prioritising making sure that all teams can at least field a roster.
  • We should keep notes of what teams existed in the past or tried to exist in the past, more potential teams is better than less
I don't know if any of this sounds crazy but to me it makes a lot of sense to make sure you know what you want your regions to be, you give new regions (like italy or something) about a week of signups to declare "hey we want to be a team" then at the end of the signup period you merge them back into some European team if they don't make the signups. This seems like the most fair way to do things that doesn't require (or allow, depending on your pov) hosts to make arbitrary decisions on what a "fair" team is and split up regions or move states to a different region to avoid the creation of "super teams".

Yes, this means strong teams can be formed if a region happens to get a lot of signups, but that's the nature of world cup and I really don't think anyone should have the authority to arbitrarily decide a team is "too strong" and "nerf" it.

A possible change to 2026 circuit
You can also find my initial conversation about this in the #tour-discussion channel in the 1v1 discord (search "threshold to qualify for champs" and you'll find my first message on the topic)

Essentially I don't like the way champs and 1v1 circuit are structured right now, because you're competing for #1 there's a high potential for burnout as you essentially have to join as many indivs as possible to stay competitive with the other people doing the same. Interest in indivs is also pretty low because a lot of people are just going through the motions, and by the time champs rolls around people have mostly lost interest in what's happening in indivs unless they're one of the qualifiers, which sounds real backwards for a tour that's supposed to be the coolest of the year. Also, if you lose tours early in the year it's easy to give up and not join later ones because there's no way to reach top 16. But I have an idea.

Here it is: What if you don't need top 16 to qualify (I think it's 16 but if I'm wrong pretend I'm right for sake of argument). What if everyone who hits more than X circuit points (let's say 100 or something (that's low I know)) qualifies for champs prelims. The preliminary rounds would be a swiss or pools style tournament that is played until 16 people remain, bringing us back to the top 16 top cut we expect from champs. You could even consider giving the top 4 or 8 a free pass into champs and letting the other qualifiers duke it out in preliminaries.

What this would (ideally) do is make it easier for people to pick and choose their tours and give people less of a reason to give up just because others are pulling ahead. Got exams during LT? No problem, you can get your points from the other tours. On top of giving circuit points, LCQ in this system could also give you a free pass into prelims if you win so that even people who didn't manage to get enough points have a chance to make it still.

This also opens the door to smaller tours. We could have small live tours that give 10 circuit points every sunday if we wanted and instead of turning into a "grind live tours to keep #1 on the rankings" (which is an issue now, more tours in circuit just leads to more burnout) you're totally not required to participate at all and can instead just use the occasional live tour to try to pad your points so you're more likely to qualify for champs prelims at the end of the year. I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD DO THIS, I'm just saying it's impossible in the current system due to burnout, and in a different system it could be possible.
 
not to beat a dead horse but i wanna give my opinions as manager (and also some opinions as a current host of a world cup), not as 1v1 staff.

i would really like to emphasize more what some people said about lost heros' control over the tournament and luser's lack thereof.
this is, in my opinion, a tremendous mismanagement by the staff team and it shouldn't just go over as a slap on the wrist like a "oh just don't do this again". lost heros, as a Tournament Director, should have some overseeing in case things go wrong, like it happened here, but that's it. however they should be delegating this role to (the non-participant) Felucia, who isn't playing this iteration, whose injury is currently healing well at the moment and who could still write with her left hand in case of emergencies.
as for luser, it would seem that they're still trying to give him perms to write in locked threads (such as admin decisions), and ss has yet to respond, so this would be yet another callout for them to please do it.

furthermore i'd like to discuss SS7, a decision that was mostly made with the SS mainers in mind, and not the rest of new SS players or the WC managers. this is curious, i'm not necessarily against the decision because there was a loud call for it, however it undermines the deeper issue which is that this makes it more difficult for newer teams (ej. china, france, brazil, mexico) due to the logistics of having to build even more teams for their non-mainers. france has two known mainers in akeras and cdlc, none of which know that much about ss, and brazil has scizor boladao, and while he has good records, he isn't known for being an ss builder.

the creation of westral is whatever to me, superteams occur all the time, this just happens to be a different kind of superteam that's just way stronger than it probably should be (cuz we already have superteams like us south with pqs chimes squirtell itchy bird tort etc), central didn't have enough signups and there wasn't really any other way to go about it, some people suggested hosts made central + canada but that would make stuff more complicated fnr imo.

finally, i think regions getting revealed before signups is absolutely okay, the issue is the timing. you can't do it 3 days before deadline, you'd have to do it around a week before deadline and ask people to sign up quickly (also reveal captains quickly so people know who to ask when doing tryouts n other stuff), this is seen in many wcs but lost heros emphasized lcwc as a joke (i think??????) and i thought that was pretty weird so i put my opinion on it and then i got called dumb for not getting a joke.

aside from that, well, it's sunday so obviously the tour's not gonna get canceled, so yeah, that's about it for me.

last minute addressing felucia's recent announcement.
Captains not showing up for draft
I ain't making the rules for this but we are in dire need of a protocol for this scenario...
my fault chat, i mean yeah we had to improvise for ogpl3 but i don't think it ended up hurting the tour overall.
In general, prospective teams should be decided by the host at least a week before signups close. They may or may not publish these, but it's important that regions aren't split too close to signups closing to make it harder to arbitrarily split teams for balance reasons
correct! this is what i was talking about earlier in 1v1cord and usually a standard for other wcs such as (the previously mentioned) lcwc and (the one i'm hosting) rcop.
Then when signups close teams from the prospective list (which should have more than 12 teams btw) can be merged until there are 12 left, prioritising making sure that all teams can at least field a roster.
ideally this could be done earlier but i understand if it can't, in rcop 2025 for example we couldn't field europe or latam teams so we had the few signups that existed join neighboring countries (ej. colombians were asked to join venezuela, i think people from sweden were asked to join either uk, netherlands, or germany).

btw regarding what i said in 1v1cord about the signups into round 1 lasting 2 weeks instead of 3, i don't agree with that mindset anymore given that for rcop specifically the issue was that we were doing the qualifying rounds first and that's why we did 2 weeks of signups.
Yes, this means strong teams can be formed if a region happens to get a lot of signups, but that's the nature of world cup and I really don't think anyone should have the authority to arbitrarily decide a team is "too strong" and "nerf" it.
about time somebody said it, yes, teams get tons of signups and superteams happen, but that's just the nature of the game, if you don't like it don't play the tour, the issue would be if a superteam gets unintentionally structured by the hosting team, which is what happened with asia + pacific in wc7 and now is going on with west + central.

also i didn't feel like replying to it all since i have to go but i like the 2026 circuit idea.

ok that's it cya.
 
Here it is: What if you don't need top 16 to qualify (I think it's 16 but if I'm wrong pretend I'm right for sake of argument). What if everyone who hits more than X circuit points (let's say 100 or something (that's low I know)) qualifies for champs prelims. The preliminary rounds would be a swiss or pools style tournament that is played until 16 people remain, bringing us back to the top 16 top cut we expect from champs. You could even consider giving the top 4 or 8 a free pass into champs and letting the other qualifiers duke it out in preliminaries.
I like this idea! I would advise giving top 8 a free pass as it would encourage players to keep playing tours after they pass the threshold, otherwise they have no 'incentive' to.
1759080606410.png
Based on this I would set the threshold at 200 or 250 if you're a bit meaner.

It does raise the question of what to do in case of a tie. I am in favour of making it a public tiebreaker bo5/7 personally.
 
Before I get too in the weeds of the specifics of what I'd like personally for the 1v1 Circuit, I want to do a quick rundown of the tours from this year.
1v1 Global Cup IV remained one of the biggest and most competitive tours we run. The format is both competitive and forgiving, as repeated rounds prevent bad luck and unlucky pairings from from ruining a run prematurely. It's also, in my opinion, allows for any number of participants with minimal byes, as round-robin finals doesn't feel out of place. (In finals you have to win 2 Bo5s anyways, with RR finals it's just 2 Bo5s against different opponents).


1v1 TLT I while an interesting introduction this year, probably wasn't as successful as some of our other tours. In my opinion, this tour ran nearly the best it could, points were distributed from tour wins fairly, and even though it did incentivize maximizing playing as many tours as you possibly could, individual room tour performances still were very important. However, there were still some pain points as top 8 performances still meant players needed a lot of consistent performances in what was relatively few room tours, which were ultimately bo1s.


1v1 LT IX despite some issues with the people who qualified, ran virtually as well as any of our previous tours. However, one of the pain points for this tour is the ELO needed to qualify, which has been consistently getting lower and lower as both overall ladder activity declines and as the # of Ladder Tour signups decline.

1v1 LCQ I is ongoing! We have yet to hear any individual complaints about that format, and in fact most people are excited about the prospect of a bo7 tour.

2025 1v1 Championship hasn't happened yet, but as most everyone knows, the format has been changed to a Double Elimination Bracket. However, I do know some people want to change the format to be bo7 instead of bo5.

Before I start talking about plans for the 2026 circuit, I want to address one more thing about the 2025 circuit. Point distribution. As many people have noted, a lot of the spots are virtually guaranteed early in the year, and many players don't have a lot of incentive for joining / trying hard after they've already gotten the points they needed. This isn't necessarily a problem that needs to be solved, but it is something that might as well be discussed.


TLDR: GC IV good. TLT I had some problems. LT IX mostly good. LCQ I looks good. Champs had some changes this year, potentially more to come. Circuit points are weird.
 
Ok now speaking as an individual,

I don't really like Felucia's above idea for the circuit to be a straight cut-off at a certain amount of points. Nor do I love the idea of small live tours that give just a few circuit points. I think both of these ideas are pretty antithetical to the idea of a circuit.

I think our actual bigger problem is, our circuit just isn't really set up right, y'know? We have 4 tours a year of equal importance which is something I'm pretty sure no other tier has.

What I think would be a better solution is the following or something like this (as a reminder this is purely my personal opinions, and disagreement is welcome):

1v1 Global Cup - Type A tournament - keep as is, winner is awarded 500 points
UM's 1v1 Open - Shared Type C Tournament - SE bo5 tour winner is awarded 166 points in the UM Circuit and 1v1 Circuit
1v1 LT - Type A Tournament - keep as is, winner is awarded 500 points
1v1 Swiss - Type B tournament - Swiss bo5 tour, winner is awarded 333 points
1v1 LCQ - Type B tournament - SE bo7 tour, winner is awarded 333 points

I think with differing tour values, it makes coming into a tour and being eliminated from a tour less punishing; it also highlights some of our best tours.

I think the problems of swiss are fixable, by simply removing byes and fixing resistance to be irrelevant before the play-in round. UM circuit integration I think is just a bonus, that can help pull some new UM players and encourage them to play more dedicated 1v1 tours. I also think LCQ is a good tour and we should keep it.

last point
Champs should be bo7 ok thank you good bye cl post soon
 
i think circuit including stuff like um ssnl is pretty good, there's a lot of waning engagement within the circuit and i think a lot just stems from the fact top players usually prefer team tours in favor of individuals (usually classic has more than avg but thats an outlier since it's not influencing champs). i think swiss as a format is kinda awkward since 1v1 tends to get a lot more first post signups than other tiers (at least from my pov) and having resistance be trolled by an insane amount of act wins doesnt feel great on top of swiss feeling like more of a drag to actually participate in.

1v1 cl should have sv static slots (idk if we want two bo7 again) and the rest be flex, unsure of what you would limit flex slots to but i think having ogpl be experimental without having actual suspect slots or something of the like makes it feel unserious. i also think not having sv in a forum team tour isolates a lot of potential, since there are a good amount of people normally playing sv that would probably lock out to pursue an old gen they enjoy, and by that logic have more opportunities for newer players to breakthrough. ogpl being an oldgen centric tour was the focus, but even then the identity has been kinda muddled from discussions of changing formats etc, and i think with the tease of flexes last year running them properly would be a good breath of fresh air to liven things up, while also giving the tour more of a tangible identity than having no current gen in it.

the thing that makes flex slots a bit messy with 1v1 tho is could you flex to bo7 in oldgens that historically have only had bo5 after current gen? i think that questions important to answer but worth the effort to think a lot about beyond just what tiers should be allowed to be included (imo probably sv-adv but idk if people enjoy natdex enough to include it? i think it has more merit than gsc did tbh).
 
i think circuit including stuff like um ssnl is pretty good, there's a lot of waning engagement within the circuit and i think a lot just stems from the fact top players usually prefer team tours in favor of individuals (usually classic has more than avg but thats an outlier since it's not influencing champs). i think swiss as a format is kinda awkward since 1v1 tends to get a lot more first post signups than other tiers (at least from my pov) and having resistance be trolled by an insane amount of act wins doesnt feel great on top of swiss feeling like more of a drag to actually participate in.
I should probably expand on why I think swiss is fixable.

Our biggest problems I think in Swiss I last year came from the fact that in addition to all of the act calls and free passes, we also had byes in late rounds, which was just strange. There are two ways to fix this. 1. We can either pair down at each round (kinda awkward that you could fight someone not in your tour bracket but it's not that big a deal, bonus is no byes). 2. We can put all the byes in round 1 and essentially force our future bracket to be the perfect size. Both would have play-ins where effectively as long as you go 5-2 you move to the SE round. Resistance matters only for the play-in round and it's not messed with by so many byes in both systems.

1v1 cl should have sv static slots (idk if we want two bo7 again) and the rest be flex, unsure of what you would limit flex slots to but i think having ogpl be experimental without having actual suspect slots or something of the like makes it feel unserious. i also think not having sv in a forum team tour isolates a lot of potential, since there are a good amount of people normally playing sv that would probably lock out to pursue an old gen they enjoy, and by that logic have more opportunities for newer players to breakthrough. ogpl being an oldgen centric tour was the focus, but even then the identity has been kinda muddled from discussions of changing formats etc, and i think with the tease of flexes last year running them properly would be a good breath of fresh air to liven things up, while also giving the tour more of a tangible identity than having no current gen in it.


the thing that makes flex slots a bit messy with 1v1 tho is could you flex to bo7 in oldgens that historically have only had bo5 after current gen? i think that questions important to answer but worth the effort to think a lot about beyond just what tiers should be allowed to be included (imo probably sv-adv but idk if people enjoy natdex enough to include it? i think it has more merit than gsc did tbh).

My opinion for CL is 6 teams, 10 slots, 3 subs, top 4 teams advance to poffs.
1 SV7 / 1 SV5 / 4 Flex bo7 Slots / 4 Flex bo5 slots

Flex options are SV-ADV + NatDex
 
i agree with lost heros on with the cl format vision, since this is what i originally wanted from the flex slot format last ogpl
Sv should not be flexable though, 2 cg slots and then either 6 flexes or 8 flexes ss-adv anf if you really really need to add it i guess natdex
With 8 players 1 flex can be bo7 2 can be bo5 and with 10 2 can be bo7 2 can be bo5
I think both 6 teams 8 player 2 subs and 10 players 3 subs have merrit, we might need to wait and see the signups

Edit: also make self buys either 15k one/35 two, or 15k one 40k two
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Rec
Gonna drop a few thoughts but I'm extremely busy rn so probs not everything I wanna say buy w/e

1. Indivs seem fine but TLT was terrible. Having qualification be on a fixed number of Bo1s isn't a good idea for a tour and we really should not be doing this until bo5s with teams changing can be a thing in roomtours.
2. Champs should be delim bo7. Just a good level of competition to have.
3. UM 1v1 Open should not give circuit points. Having a selim bo5 tour give 2/3rd of the points needed for someone to qualify if they win it is a bit absurd to me, given that a lot of non-1v1ers play UM circuit tournaments and do not have much in terms of scoutable information on them, which can make variance a good bit worse.
4. Idc abt 1v1 CL as much given I'm choosing to not play it but I dislike the fact that we're trying to have a third 1v1 forum teamtour that features SV. Between UM and 1v1 Forums, that puts us at 5 teamtours for SV, which I think is a bit excessive, even for CG. I'm not a massive fan of having a bunch of flex slots either. It's easier to say "okay, I'll draft a generally good 1v1 player for this flex slot and hope they cook" for one slot than it is for four. Having four flex slots frankly feels excessive and makes it harder to find a good strategy for your own flex slots while still being reactive to your opponent's strategy.

its 6 am sorry if this post sucks
 
My takes:

TLT unfortunately is a no until Bo5 change teams happens, but afterwards it may be one of the better tours to have, either that or live (but they're pretty much the same thing just automatically hosted instead of manually)

All UM 1v1-focused tours should absolutely count, but I agree it would be better to divide between Type A, Type B and Type C

1v1CL is a good change, and having SV in it is good for playerbase reason; it kinda depends what the purpose of the tour is

Mono flex slots is a good idea specifically because you are forcing players to try tiers they have never tried before and to collaborate more in teambuilding instead of the usual everyone is relegated to their own channel because everyone is specialized to 1 tier.
If you are not down for this as a player and you still just wanna play your one tier you can do this if you are great at that tier because strategically it makes sense for your manager to put you there, so easy peasy. If you are not good at your tier then tough luck it's a competitive tournament you need to prove yourself. This format is also great for players who are all rounders and are able to play multiple formats, which usually ends up becoming a sulking "sub depth" stat that never actually contributes to the team's performance
Overall I am down for this system^

Otherwise you can go the boring route of 2sv 1ss 1sm 1oras 1bw 1dpp 1adv 1natdex 1uu and that's also fine, realistically you just do a vote

My personal absolute take of all time is that the best format to be playing tours is single elimination until top 16, and double elimination starting from there. delim for the entire tour duration just means doubling the tour length for no reason because insane losers runs, while hype, are more so a mythical creature that happens once in a blue moon, and you are basically getting a bunch of deadgames and act calls early, extending the tour fnr and giving winners break weeks every other week just for the potential to have that one mythical unicorn winner. Top 16/32 (depending on signup numbers) is around the time when the big boys start playing and you actually give players a comeback mechanic for luck/bad mu/whatever and make the tour more hype.

This is why something like Swiss into Single Elimination playoffs is Literally The Worst Tournament Format That Has Ever Existed. You have all of the bad parts from early delim with useless matchups, people not playing seriously, act wins, deadgames and as soon as that's done the x-0 player gets Absolutely No Reward At All Even A Little Bit


onto Bo7: I think a very elaborated discussion needs to be had between tds/council/community on what a standard to use for Bo7 in tours in general because we currently have to talk about it before every single tour and it is very bizarre to have these inconsistencies.
In the meantime, there should just always be a general vote before every tour for its participants to see if they want a certain slot to Bo7
aka let the champs qualifiers or the classic qualifiers vote on the format since they're the only ones playing

i think this is all? i will double post (handcuff me) if i remember smth
 
Hi, weighing in slightly specifically on the UM circuit stuff since that appears to be a conversation? I obviously would advocate sharing 1v1 UM tours, but I will say that if you're going to pick one of the two, I'd recommend picking the Seasonal and not the Open. The Open is obviously inherently less "competitive" by nature of being SE, but also my recollection from circuit coordination last year was that the Open overlapped with an SV 1v1 tour, while the Seasonal only overlapped with old gen tours and maybe a touch of LT? Obviously that's still overlap, but no realistic circuit has zero overlap at all. I won't speculate on future possible versions of the UM Circuit, obviously I don't intend to just sit on it and never seek further improvements, but if y'all are going to try to sync up with UM Circuit at all (I'm biased but highly recommend!) I'd consider syncing up with the Seasonal over anything.
 
tldr

Deg said tlt horrendous. Tlt was horrendous. Deg always right.

Cl ok. Mono flex horrendous. Dumb down the tour. Tour mono focus on draft. Preweek decides tour more than week. Tiers+flex ok. 6 teams ok. 10 slots ok. 1sv ss sm oras bw dpp natdex uu 2flex (1flex og, 1flex om). Best format. Keeps representation for all gens. Create om rep. Doesnt dillute userbase. Can also remove sv. Not important for this. Too much sv.

Bo7>bo5 for single elim ok. Bo7 >bo5 for poffs format ok. Better than de. Better than swiss.
No more time for de + useless in poffs.

Bo7 main format for tb ok. Keep bo5 all og slots if 1x or change all to bo7. Community outgrew bo5.

Tour tiering for less/more pts ok.
 
For 1v1CL, I think the following are what's most popular, what's being considered:

6x10 / 6x8 both fine

For 10 slots SV7 / SV5 / 4 Flex7 / 4 Flex5 OR SV / SS / SM / ORAS / BW / DPP / ADV OR UU / ND / Flex / Flex OR SV7 / SV5 (or something else) / SS / SM / ORAS / BW / DPP / ADV / ND / UU

The bo? would be would probably be decided by poll for 7 or 5 per tier, or we could be totally excessive for no reason and make teams choose which slot(s) are bo7

For Circuit I think the following have been discussed positively to some extent:

Global Cup
LT
UM's 1v1 Open
UM's 1v1 Seasonal
Swiss
Hybrid Elimination (x rounds SE > Top 16 DE)
LCQ

For Bo5 / Bo7, I think Bo5 should be the default for the most part, with Bo7 used to highlight top tier talent and games. This would mean GC stays Bo5 throughout, UM tours do what they do which will likely just be Bo5 throughout. LT / Swiss / Hybrid could either be Bo5 throughout or their respective top cut rounds could be Bo7. LCQ would stay Bo7 and Champs would become Bo7. All team tour tiebreaks would be Bo7
 
Last edited:
ADV OR UU
UU? :joy:

6x10
SS / SM / ORAS / BW / DPP / ADV / flex / flex. remaining 2 slots something between gsc nd sv uu in this order
mono flex is terrible

there was discussion post last ogpl about removing gsc from flex slot iirc?(or even if gsc should be in the tour) i think gsc should retain 1 slot either static OR be in the flex pool.

as for bo7 slots I believe that ss and sm players would like that bo7 slot, so either teams should be allowed to flex bo7 on those 2 or their static slots should remain bo7 and only bo5 can be flexed

sv got no business being in this tour either stay old gens or be old gens + oms
why do we even want sv in another team tour? if u sv one trick then then sit in the stands. we have pl wc + like 10 sv indivs they have plenty of opportunity to get noticed so this point makes no sense. its not like ogpl replaced an existing cg tt.

max concession = 1 sv slot. obviously you cant have 1 flex slot UNLESS you did something similar to that one ttt where the slot was the same for everyone for the week (eg wk 1 the slot is bw for everyone, wk 2 oras) but i dont think people want this
 
6x10 or 8x8 1v1 has expanded enough where you can slot 60 people a tour. You will probably have some duds and that’s ok but I think realistically you have closer to 60 “players that can go even or better potential” compared to 6x8 48.

6x10 ideal:
SV
SV
4 flexes per team (SV to ADV, ND allowed)

I would prefer
SV7
SV
SV
SS
SM
BW
ORAS
DPP
ADV
NatDex

But understand that this is particularly contentious.
-
A team tour without SV at all would be poor. Not sure how advantageous this really is for literally anyone. SV is boring or oversaturated is not a reason - not only is that

1. subjective because WCOP has given us quite interesting teams seen by the likes of europe/east/fancy1/gorilaa etc but

2. do you really want a tour to be competitive/create draft advantage off of tiers that are only seen once an year individually?

I shudder to think of this as a potential example: let’s start with SS SM ORAS BW DPP ADV 2 flexes per team for 6x10. Do you want to create dradt advantage via one side flexing like 2 ADV + another being like ORAS and SM? LOL? This is not really a battle of tiers and shoves potential inflation towards tiers with the likes of sub ~10 (realistically 5 @ adv dpp but I’ll concede the point). We saw how fun flexing GSC was last time for everyone involved. DPP and ADV barely have on average enough to play more than once a week. I’m all for representation but not shoving relatively unknown tiers that are only played once a year down our throats more than once a week to concede general competitiveness. I think it is also a shame to see players like Fancy1 or Indi bench or skip as prolific and titled SV mainers - or potential SV new players who can slot as SV3 @ pl or wcop not even getting to play the tier they’re learning in a competitive format.

Also pool drought existed because these tiers have not enough mainers to slot 6 slots, let alone whatever flexes you need to create. In reality OGPL also already suffers from finding mainers who play DPP/ADV/(+ sorry but NatDex too on paper - THOUGH- that’s had more offsite rep so you can probably find goldmines there) making them dump slots for teams generally. Ignoring that at times SM ORAS BW have seen pool drought/risk by throwing new player given teams etc.

Also you can’t have flex slots unless the slot itself is a starting slot. This unfortunately comes at the cost of having 2 flex slots max in my view. E: Unless the tour itself accepts it full commits which is OK.

EDIT: after mulling it over I think 2 SV 4 flexes per team or 4 SV 3 flexes per team are also very OK formats. I would definitely prefer to see a tour with >=2 SV rep forced per week.

would rank them as

no flexes format I posted above (3 SV, nd, ss to adv)
2 SV + 4 flexes per team
4 SV + 3 flexes per team
8 stagnant slots format I posted above + 1 flex per team
 
Last edited:
Back
Top