• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

Announcement ZUPL VIII - Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

sleid

Monochromatic
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Top Community Contributoris a Top Metagame Resource Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UM Leader
ZUPL VIII is coming up fast! The mod team felt like last year's tournament went well, but there is one discussion point we wanted to gauge from the community before this iteration is underway.

1. SV4 vs Bo3 of some kind - lots of people complained about SV4 > a Bo3 slot last ZUPL despite the thread not showing a ton of support for it last year. Did 4 SV slots seem like too much or should we keep it the same? If we did Bo3, would you want to see Triathlon Bo3 or SV, SS, SM Bo3 or SV Bo3?

You can bring other discussions points if you think we missed anything. There is a huge chance we don't change anything from last year, as it went very smoothly, but we'll consider anything brought up in this thread.
 
I would absolutely love Triathlon Bo3 in ZUPL, it's a great way to represent our old gens which are enjoyed by the community and I think it'd be a direct upgrade over having a fourth SV slot. I also think it would help bring ZUPL some identity as ZU is a metagame where I feel like the old gens are particularly beloved compared to most metagames I interact with (I legit always see people fiending for ORAS or SM ZU in random servers for example). I also see a pretty solid argument for SV/SS/SM Bo3, but I personally prefer triathlon format. SV Bo3 seems fine as well, but I know it wouldn't excite me as much personally.

imo Triathlon Bo3 > SV/SS/SM Bo3 > SV Bo3 > SV4
 
I've always been against BO3 in teamtours. I love to quote this post from Soulwind as it covers a lot of the issues I have with this slot as a whole. Generally speaking, I feel that preparing good enough for a bo3 slot requires too much time and it encourages either boring reuse or advantages too much players who can put dozens of hours into ZUPL every week, which is pretty discriminating compared to what's expected in other slots.

If despite this we move forward with BO3, this should definitely feature SV as it's by far the most accessible metagame, especially compared to ORAS which barely anybody played when it was current generation due to not be supported on Smogon at the time (it also was 10 years ago). Id prefer Smogtours generations over full CG as it is less boring, especially considering we are already building 3 other SV slots in the week and it would for sure exacerbate the reuse boredom issue. Old Gens arent particularly more loved in ZU than in other tiers, that's some cope, and we really need to put the emphasize on our main format, the circuit format, the one with current tiering, which is SV.

So I'd say SV4 > Smogtours bo3 > SV bo3 > Triathlon bo3. But i cant stress enough how much worse it gets going down the list every time.
 
Last edited:
Showing my support for bo3 inclusion.

The players have wanted it for years and I believe its worth trying out. Its not like this decision has to stick for future iterations as we can always go back if it doesn't work out and then the anti bo3 guys can say I told you so and we will be done with it.

SV/SS/SM is probably the best option as it keeps the same amount of SV games as ik some people are worried about cutting the main metagame development, especially if we had a rule to default SV to g1.

This is just me rambling at this point but by having SV in bo3 it could be argued that it actually increases SV development or at least the quality of games as you are trading a sv4 pilot for a 2nd "sv1" calibre player such as myself, tuthur or obb etc who would normally be in an oldgen. (this does take away the strength of oldgens pool though)

:pip::worrycargo::worrywhirl::pika::pip::worrycargo::worrywhirl::pika:
 
I believe Bo3 will not be beneficial to the format overall. While Bo3 arguably offers a more diverse spectator experience, the ask of preparing 3 tearms for one slot is alot. Additionally, maintaining the quality of the SS-ORAS pools (depending on whether you did it as a triathalon Bo3 or SV through SM) would be difficult considering there are relatively few people who can have experience playing all 3 of these tiers compared those who have played SV. This could lead to throwing people into the Bo3 slot with matchup fishing and/or boring reuses of teams. SV Bo3 has less of an issue with fielding competent players coming off a 16 team, 4 SV slot World Cup but at the cost of being less interesting and I'd imagine most players would rather only prep for one SV game at that point. Format is likely fine as is.

SV4 > SV Bo3 > SV-SM Bo3 > Triathalon Bo3

Edit: +1 to idea of 6 teams, just dont see it actually happening.
 
Last edited:
I also support the inclusion of a Bo3 slot (SV/SS/SM).

From a spectator's perspective, a Bo3 series is generally more engaging to watch than a fourth standard SV game and also helps diversify the formats present in the tournament without actually reducing SV's representation, since SV would still be played within the Bo3 slot. On the competitive side, Bo3 introduces a different set of skills than a traditional Bo1 match. Players are required to maintain a high level of play across an entire series rather than a single game, prepare for multiple games instead of focusing on a single matchup, and comfortably switch between different metagames and formats. The format also rewards players who can make adjustments over the course of a set. To me, Bo3 offers a good middle ground: it brings a different dynamic to the tournament and makes the format feel less repetitive, while preserving SV's importance within the overall lineup. While I do think reusing is pretty common in Bo3 and can be somewhat frustrating, Bo1 has never prevented players from reusing teams either, so I do not view that as a decisive argument against the format.

As for the format of the Bo3, I think a SV/SS/SM Bo3 is the option that makes the most sense. It helps keeping the current generation as a central part of the tournament while still incorporating two of the most relevant and actively played old gens. I don't like SV Bo3 because this would definitely overwhelm SV builders when building is already harder than older gens due to the metagame still evolving and options being explored whereas SS/SM/ORAS are pretty much established. Although I would personally love to see a Triathlon Bo3 (SS/SM/ORAS), I can't really think of any reason to remove SV. My only concern would be that introducing a Bo3 slot could further concentrate top-level talent into that slot and as a result, lower significantly the overall level of play in the remaining oldgens slots.

As Toto mentioned, I don't think there's much to lose by giving it a try. A lot of players seem interested in the format, and I believe the only real way to determine whether it fits the tournament is to test it in practice. If it turns out that Bo3 isn't a good fit or creates issues that outweigh its benefits, it can simply be removed in future editions and we can move on from the idea.

TL;DR: Support Bo3 (SV/SS/SM). It adds variety both from a spectator and competitive standpoint without sacrificing SV representation, and I see no downside to giving it a chance.

Smogtour Bo3 > SV4 > Triathlon Bo3 > SV Bo3
 
It profoundly irritates me the resistance of going back to 6 team slots from most people, as if it's any sort of a bad thing, when it's quite the opposite. In this post I will be making some points with actual data to back them up, a thing you don't see very often around here!

1. There are not enough good players for eight teams

I saw this argument before when the tournament was expanded to eight, whoever said that was correct. Maybe not for ZUPL IV especially though, as that one benefitted a lot from BW ZU Breadwinners Tour hype and some other drama, notably btboy not getting a team until the expansion. Anyway, other low tier PLs have been struggling this year too with signups quality and the downgrade from last year feels very real. Take a look at PUPL 25 and 26 and RUPL 25 and 26.

2. Manager Quality

This one is actually moronic. There haven't been eight community member pair signups since forever, we have a dependance on random tour players site-wide to signup to keep at eight, those guys >usually< dont care or make the playoffs >there are exceptions like seroo I mentioned yesterday in toursdisc< but somehow 8 teams is doing well for people. S tier ragebait. With 6 teams, it's not like tour players are never getting a team either, but we can filter for more qualified or community involved ones. It also helps with (but not entirely solves) the issue of people managing just because others are bad and you don't want to play for them, due to now the pool being... less bad. I challenge the ZU mod team to make a survey with ZU tour managers asking if they're managing partially because they wouldn't want to play for most other pairs or not.

3. Tour Length

This is more personal but I'm sure a lot of people agree with me that 7 weeks regular season is unnecessarily tiring. You can get the tournament done in the duration of a 8-team regular season if there's no tiebreaks, and also minimizes overlap with SCL, which is very likely getting us a couple more of quality tour player signups.

Recognized Issues:

The playoffs:

1000062911.jpg


Just do 6:4 if we hate the Bye week for Seed 1 that profoundly. Makes it easier, yeah but like as I said it already kinda is...

SV4:

SV4 is very unviable of a slot. 6 teams make it a bit less unviable though.

Format Talk (quick):

People didn't really simpatize with my ideas re:this yesterday so I'll just talk about the Bo3.
I think 6 teams also go a long way on enabling whatever form of Bo3 it's been thought of. Stour is probably the best format but the slot seems tough in general because I can't really think of many people that can play all three. SV Bo3 is definitely unviable and should never happen. Triathlon is cool for the mainers and could happen with 6 teams I believe, but stour is still better / more pertinent and even with 6 teams I see at least 1/3 needing to put a clicker in there. It's controversial at the same time because I don't think ORAS is hard to play with a team passed but when you think of tour players for low tiers it's gonna usually be SV mainers so they would probably prefer playing it.

MZGA Danny
 
Last edited:
Wanted to voice my opinions here. TL;DR no changes plz

I think the format from last year was perfect. I ended up helping prep in as many of the Crams SV slots as I was needed in, and yeah it was a lot, but I think 4 is the right number of SV slots.

I'm SV4 > Bo3, but if we are going with a Bo3, the only one I want to see is the SmogTours Bo3 since it messes with the total amount of SV the least. However, it's basically just adding an extra SS/SM game each week, and it would most likely be moving people out of the SS/SM pools. I don't know if that's ideal.

Also, I think it's easier to find a singular unproven or ZUWC SV4 player than to support 2SM and 2SS. I get that the vision is that people like Tuthur and Toto are playing in the Bo3 slot (and Tuthur is anti-bo3 lol), but if they're building (lol) 3 teams a week, they're probably not helping your designated SS and SM slots as much as you'd want them to (if at all).

As for cutting down from 8->6 teams and making the tour shorter, I think this is a bad idea. First, this cuts 2 people from each pool. Even if we just look at the ADV pool on last year's sheet, the top 6 on the ADV record sheet already form a competitive pool and still manages to leave out Hachimaki, among people like Melninja who probably could start but ended up 1-1 as a sub. On top of that, it took all 7 weeks for the crams to find its best starting SV LU (tj lbn beavs me), and I think that having time to figure out the best lineup across a tour is good, and it gives subs more chances to play. Anyways, ZUPL should not be changed so it can be less inclusive.
 
It profoundly irritates me the resistance of going back to 6 team slots from most people, as if it's any sort of a bad thing, when it's quite the opposite. In this post I will be making some points with actual data to back them up, a thing you don't see very often around here!

1. There are not enough good players for eight teams

I saw this argument before when the tournament was expanded to eight, whoever said that was correct. Maybe not for ZUPL IV especially though, as that one benefitted a lot from BW ZU Breadwinners Tour hype and some other drama, notably btboy not getting a team until the expansion. Anyway, other low tier PLs have been struggling this year too with signups quality and the downgrade from last year feels very real. Take a look at PUPL 25 and 26 and RUPL 25 and 26.

2. Manager Quality

This one is actually moronic. There haven't been eight community member pair signups since forever, we have a dependance on random tour players site-wide to signup to keep at eight, those guys >usually< dont care or make the playoffs >there are exceptions like seroo I mentioned yesterday in toursdisc< but somehow 8 teams is doing well for people. S tier ragebait. With 6 teams, it's not like tour players are never getting a team either, but we can filter for more qualified or community involved ones. It also helps with (but not entirely solves) the issue of people managing just because others are bad and you don't want to play for them, due to now the pool being... less bad. I challenge the ZU mod team to make a survey with ZU tour managers asking if they're managing partially because they wouldn't want to play for most other pairs or not.

3. Tour Length

This is more personal but I'm sure a lot of people agree with me that 7 weeks regular season is unnecessarily tiring. You can get the tournament done in the duration of a 8-team regular season if there's no tiebreaks, and also minimizes overlap with SCL, which is very likely getting us a couple more of quality tour player signups.

Recognized Issues:

The playoffs:

View attachment 840162


Just do 6:4 if we hate the Bye week for Seed 1 that profoundly. Makes it easier, yeah but like as I said it already kinda is...

SV4:

SV4 is very unviable of a slot. 6 teams make it a bit less unviable though.

Format Talk (quick):

People didn't really simpatize with my ideas re:this yesterday so I'll just talk about the Bo3.
I think 6 teams also go a long way on enabling whatever form of Bo3 it's been thought of. Stour is probably the best format but the slot seems tough in general because I can't really think of many people that can play all three. SV Bo3 is definitely unviable and should never happen. Triathlon is cool for the mainers and could happen with 6 teams I believe, but stour is still better / more pertinent and even with 6 teams I see at least 1/3 needing to put a clicker in there. It's controversial at the same time because I don't think ORAS is hard to play with a team passed but when you think of tour players for low tiers it's gonna usually be SV mainers so they would probably prefer playing it.

MZGA Danny
What do you want me to do?
 
As for cutting down from 8->6 teams and making the tour shorter, I think this is a bad idea. First, this cuts 2 people from each pool. Even if we just look at the ADV pool on last year's sheet, the top 6 on the ADV record sheet already form a competitive pool and still manages to leave out Hachimaki, among people like Melninja who probably could start but ended up 1-1 as a sub. On top of that, it took all 7 weeks for the crams to find its best starting SV LU (tj lbn beavs me), and I think that having time to figure out the best lineup across a tour is good, and it gives subs more chances to play. Anyways, ZUPL should not be changed so it can be less inclusive.

Insane larp LOL. Dropping two people per pool isn't a negative at all. Even the nitpicked example of last year's ADV pool is super debatable, and the status of returning players is completely up in the air. Czim (last year's pool MVP) said yesterday he's way more likely to play five weeks instead of seven; Fogbound Lake said last year that if he even plays ZUPL this time, he's probably trying a different meta. Plus, players like plznostep can easily slot into other tiers where they might be in higher demand anyway because fewer people are playing now. Hachimaki and Melninja got their spots as full season starters in ZUCL after, and general tour players like mielke or Parpar returning is also nothing confirmed.

There is nothing about making the tournament less inclusive by making it 6 teams.

I think the format from last year was perfect. I ended up helping prep in as many of the Crams SV slots as I was needed in, and yeah it was a lot, but I think 4 is the right number of SV slots

You don't seem to deny that the quality of the SV games was kinda bad last year though? 4 SV is the right amount for what exactly? No elaboration ever...
 
You do make the tournament less inclusive by reducing the amount of teams, like by definition you are limiting the amount of people that get into a tournament. Less managers (not as important) get to shine and less people get drafted to show off their skills for future tours (important). We did this for a Monotype tournament tour a few years back and nobody cared about it. The tour was boring because weeks were settled quickly, and the fake elitist take about game quality didn't end up mattering because the people crying for it called the tour shit anyway. No one will ever be satisfied, I promise you. In PUBD II when I managed to finals and a custom was offered in a 6-team tournament, it was way too easy and it felt like a joke. Those outlier teams can end up winning against teams who need to win really bad and it shakes up the playoff race in an interesting way. It makes those teams fighting for survival lock-in regardless of opponent and make a better story for their journey. It's Pokemon and games are probably going to be shit anyway if it's influenced by luck, and players being "good" or "bad" is mostly subjective when it comes to side PLs. Tour players are expected to win and will get drafted the next year anyway even if they flop, and mainers can go either way and many mainers get snubbed in their own tours. So neither are really impacting pool quality. Manager quality is a good shout, there are a lot of pairs that pretty much prevent signups for side tours. You would be shocked at how many DMs I get as a manager-main of people saying they don't want to be on xyz team (I've gotten asked to manage SSPL by a decent amnt of people for this reason. Not trying to shit on that tour, but my point is that this is the only relevant part of your post). Personally, I just sign up to play, and I don't care otherwise, but the concern itself is valid. Forum mods and TLs should just have a harsher vetting process for managers, and stop letting the same lolcow duos run around to every side tour and waste 7 weeks of people's lives. Duration of a tour is nothing burger. If you can't make time for a tournament, then don't sign up. No one is forcing you to play, and to center an entire tournament around your own schedule because you can't make time is selfish. Unless there is a lot of data to reinforce that people want a shorter ZUPL, then sure go for it.

Addendum for some anecdotal stuff, I very much agree with Lettuce. When kDCA Sealoo and I won NDPL, we had a massive roster shift in W5. That roster shift ended up paying off big time and we ended up winning the tour because we were able to find our groove even as late as that. You nullify that chance when the tour is so short and force teams to basically pray everyone does well within the first 2-3 weeks with not much room for error. In PUCL, my team lost Weeks 1 & 2 miserably. A lot of luck was involved. After that we didn't drop a single week and went on to win the tournament. If that was another 5 week tour, everyones motivation would've died because we would've had such a low margin for error. You do not win a Pokemon tournament without getting lucky, team or individual. No need to exacerbate that.

Sorry for the long post, but I really love playing ZU whenever I'm given the chance and have been playing it for a decent amount of time atp in various tours, so figured I'd say something even if I'm somewhat of a tourist. This just seems like a fixing what isn't broken proposal for the sake of fake quality. We're not playing for money or gaining any attention on social media for winning such a tournament. Never understood elitism outside of SCL/SPL
 
You do make the tournament less inclusive by reducing the amount of teams, like by definition you are limiting the amount of people that get into a tournament. Less managers (not as important) get to shine and less people get drafted to show off their skills for future tours (important). We did this for a Monotype tournament tour a few years back and nobody cared about it. The tour was boring because weeks were settled quickly, and the fake elitist take about game quality didn't end up mattering because the people crying for it called the tour shit anyway. No one will ever be satisfied, I promise you. In PUBD II when I managed to finals and a custom was offered in a 6-team tournament, it was way too easy and it felt like a joke. Those outlier teams can end up winning against teams who need to win really bad and it shakes up the playoff race in an interesting way. It makes those teams fighting for survival lock-in regardless of opponent and make a better story for their journey. It's Pokemon and games are probably going to be shit anyway if it's influenced by luck, and players being "good" or "bad" is mostly subjective when it comes to side PLs. Tour players are expected to win and will get drafted the next year anyway even if they flop, and mainers can go either way and many mainers get snubbed in their own tours. So neither are really impacting pool quality. Manager quality is a good shout, there are a lot of pairs that pretty much prevent signups for side tours. You would be shocked at how many DMs I get as a manager-main of people saying they don't want to be on xyz team (I've gotten asked to manage SSPL by a decent amnt of people for this reason. Not trying to shit on that tour, but my point is that this is the only relevant part of your post). Personally, I just sign up to play, and I don't care otherwise, but the concern itself is valid. Forum mods and TLs should just have a harsher vetting process for managers, and stop letting the same lolcow duos run around to every side tour and waste 7 weeks of people's lives. Duration of a tour is nothing burger. If you can't make time for a tournament, then don't sign up. No one is forcing you to play, and to center an entire tournament around your own schedule because you can't make time is selfish. Unless there is a lot of data to reinforce that people want a shorter ZUPL, then sure go for it.

Addendum for some anecdotal stuff, I very much agree with Lettuce. When kDCA Sealoo and I won NDPL, we had a massive roster shift in W5. That roster shift ended up paying off big time and we ended up winning the tour because we were able to find our groove even as late as that. You nullify that chance when the tour is so short and force teams to basically pray everyone does well within the first 2-3 weeks with not much room for error. In PUCL, my team lost Weeks 1 & 2 miserably. A lot of luck was involved. After that we didn't drop a single week and went on to win the tournament. If that was another 5 week tour, everyones motivation would've died because we would've had such a low margin for error. You do not win a Pokemon tournament without getting lucky, team or individual. No need to exacerbate that.

Sorry for the long post, but I really love playing ZU whenever I'm given the chance and have been playing it for a decent amount of time atp in various tours, so figured I'd say something even if I'm somewhat of a tourist. This just seems like a fixing what isn't broken proposal for the sake of fake quality. We're not playing for money or gaining any attention on social media for winning such a tournament. Never understood elitism outside of SCL/SPL
Very nice post. I agree with some stuff and would probably agree with everything if we weren't talking about ZU/ZUPL, which in my perception you might be misunderstanding the intentions of this change and lacking some information about how our tournaments usually go.

To preface, you mention a lot of your experiences with Monotype and PU, which are valid to bring across the board but mostly as addendums imo. I get that you speak in a tone more of separating officials (SCL/SPL) to non officials / subforum stuff, but I don't think that's a very precise way of elaborating on this. There is a very large gap in interest numbers between UUPL and PUPL for example, and so there is one between PUPL and ZUPL or MPL and ZUPL.

Now I'll be answering your arguments individually.
You do make the tournament less inclusive by reducing the amount of teams, like by definition you are limiting the amount of people that get into a tournament. Less managers (not as important) get to shine and less people get drafted to show off their skills for future tours (important).
Yeah thinking only on the number of people playing per week, that would be correct. The second part though? ZUPL is supposed to be the most prestigious and of highest level ZU team tournament, and unlike other metagame PLs, it does not work simultaneously as a stair for officials. I can relate: I was the tournament's overall MVP last year and that isn't really something you can use to get into officials like you possibly could in some other metagame PL. Yes, I was playing an oldgen, but let's not larp like a good ZUPL SV record would put someone in SCL. Therefore, this seems like a non issue for me.
Tour players are expected to win and will get drafted the next year anyway even if they flop, and mainers can go either way and many mainers get snubbed in their own tours.
I really don't think this is true.
When I asked people to name names on snubs for last ZUCL, in which they were complaining 8 slots created some:
1781359889737.png

Spoiler: he did not name names
Meth Master, a regular, then answered me talking about himself (fair) and Praise the Salt (I don't really know much or see this guy in tournaments a lot but he's a regular). I actually had Meth Master as a sub in my plans but in VC during the auction people were asking for other people and yeah you know how it goes. I thought someone else would for sure pick them up, though. Note that ZUCL was a 8 teams tour but with 8 slots. IMO it was very superior to ZUPL hard in game quality terms, so I do not think the quality talk is entirely fake, and the few snubs people could even name were more results of bad managers drafting rather than anything else.
tl;dr: snubs are produced by people drafting badly, not by not having enough spots, and I can really only affirm on methmaster of these two.

As for tour players getting drafted again even if they flop: Not sure either, I guess it all depends on how much they cared and their results site wide from an year to another. I'd be happy to draft again some who played for me and didn't have a great record because they were getting themselves decently involved and trying to win for the team, but I also wouldn't touch again others who seemed they couldn't care less.
Forum mods and TLs should just have a harsher vetting process for managers, and stop letting the same lolcow duos run around to every side tour and waste 7 weeks of people's lives.
This is impossible when you barely get eight teams and still want to do eight teams. There is no way to filter whatsoever. ZUPL usually gets like 9-10 but like of these usually 3-4 feel either very very novice, or tour players who have quite literally never interacted within the tier and don't have notable success as managers elsewhere. You need to reduce the numbers of spots for a pickier filtering to happen.
Duration of a tour is nothing burger. If you can't make time for a tournament, then don't sign up. No one is forcing you to play, and to center an entire tournament around your own schedule because you can't make time is selfish. Unless there is a lot of data to reinforce that people want a shorter ZUPL, then sure go for it.
I'm far from being the only one here. I get that you're speaking in general and not about me at all but if you search for "6x10" "5 weeks" or "6 teams",in the ZU discord, or if you just ask them, you'll see a lot of people in favor, a lot of which are some of the best managers or pool mainstays. In fact, I made it clear that I'm playing regardless of this

1781359728479.png


As a disclaimer so people don't think I'm nitpicking: I have no answer to the lineup adjustments thing you can do with 8 teams, I think those are still very possible with 6 (not sure if you would remember about Olympiad 3, in which Michael Jordan started as a sub for our team but started playing in week 3 to the playoffs iirc.) But yeah like you can obviously be more patient if it's 8 teams. For the playoffs race, yes eight teams has the potential to be more fun, but for ZUPL I don't really see a difference when, as I already stated, you often have two teams out by the end of week 5 or week 6. So week 7 is in practice with the same stakes of a week 5 of a 6-team tour.

Ultimately, I appreciate you coming here to post your opinion and perspectives. Seems more about you thinking the cons of six teams outweight the pros and I see it as the opposite, which is fair and we can agree to disagree.
 
Very nice post. I agree with some stuff and would probably agree with everything if we weren't talking about ZU/ZUPL, which in my perception you might be misunderstanding the intentions of this change and lacking some information about how our tournaments usually go.

To preface, you mention a lot of your experiences with Monotype and PU, which are valid to bring across the board but mostly as addendums imo. I get that you speak in a tone more of separating officials (SCL/SPL) to non officials / subforum stuff, but I don't think that's a very precise way of elaborating on this. There is a very large gap in interest numbers between UUPL and PUPL for example, and so there is one between PUPL and ZUPL or MPL and ZUPL.

Now I'll be answering your arguments individually.

Yeah thinking only on the number of people playing per week, that would be correct. The second part though? ZUPL is supposed to be the most prestigious and of highest level ZU team tournament, and unlike other metagame PLs, it does not work simultaneously as a stair for officials. I can relate: I was the tournament's overall MVP last year and that isn't really something you can use to get into officials like you possibly could in some other metagame PL. Yes, I was playing an oldgen, but let's not larp like a good ZUPL SV record would put someone in SCL. Therefore, this seems like a non issue for me.

I really don't think this is true.
When I asked people to name names on snubs for last ZUCL, in which they were complaining 8 slots created some:
View attachment 840478
Spoiler: he did not name names
Meth Master, a regular, then answered me talking about himself (fair) and Praise the Salt (I don't really know much or see this guy in tournaments a lot but he's a regular). I actually had Meth Master as a sub in my plans but in VC during the auction people were asking for other people and yeah you know how it goes. I thought someone else would for sure pick them up, though. Note that ZUCL was a 8 teams tour but with 8 slots. IMO it was very superior to ZUPL hard in game quality terms, so I do not think the quality talk is entirely fake, and the few snubs people could even name were more results of bad managers drafting rather than anything else.
tl;dr: snubs are produced by people drafting badly, not by not having enough spots, and I can really only affirm on methmaster of these two.

As for tour players getting drafted again even if they flop: Not sure either, I guess it all depends on how much they cared and their results site wide from an year to another. I'd be happy to draft again some who played for me and didn't have a great record because they were getting themselves decently involved and trying to win for the team, but I also wouldn't touch again others who seemed they couldn't care less.

This is impossible when you barely get eight teams and still want to do eight teams. There is no way to filter whatsoever. ZUPL usually gets like 9-10 but like of these usually 3-4 feel either very very novice, or tour players who have quite literally never interacted within the tier and don't have notable success as managers elsewhere. You need to reduce the numbers of spots for a pickier filtering to happen.

I'm far from being the only one here. I get that you're speaking in general and not about me at all but if you search for "6x10" "5 weeks" or "6 teams",in the ZU discord, or if you just ask them, you'll see a lot of people in favor, a lot of which are some of the best managers or pool mainstays. In fact, I made it clear that I'm playing regardless of this

View attachment 840474

As a disclaimer so people don't think I'm nitpicking: I have no answer to the lineup adjustments thing you can do with 8 teams, I think those are still very possible with 6 (not sure if you would remember about Olympiad 3, in which Michael Jordan started as a sub for our team but started playing in week 3 to the playoffs iirc.) But yeah like you can obviously be more patient if it's 8 teams. For the playoffs race, yes eight teams has the potential to be more fun, but for ZUPL I don't really see a difference when, as I already stated, you often have two teams out by the end of week 5 or week 6. So week 7 is in practice with the same stakes of a week 5 of a 6-team tour.

Ultimately, I appreciate you coming here to post your opinion and perspectives. Seems more about you thinking the cons of six teams outweight the pros and I see it as the opposite, which is fair and we can agree to disagree.
I didnt answer to you, because I couldn't be bothered to check the undrafted list and expected you to find dumb excuses. This discussion to go down to 6 teams is completely pointless. You are the only person who advocates for it seriously, because of made-up elitism as if the level had dropped in ZUPL (it hasnt), while every other people has been bringing up valid criticism with that format (which is why 6 teams teamtours are getting rarer across the site). Everything has already been said and this discussion is stale. You can be stubborn and believe everyone is blind to disagree with you, but writing yet another multiparagh post to repeat once again the same arguments people disagree with is not gonna change their mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top