UUCL 1 Format Discussion Thread

[vivalospride]

This tournament will be primarily based upon the successful formatting of the semi-recent NUCL 2.

NUCL 2’s format was as follows:
- 2 SV + 4 Flex lots for each team (SV 1 / SV 2 / 8 Flex).
- Repeats allowed between teams, but not from the same team (Team A and Team B can both pick SM, but Team A can't pick SM 1 SM 2). Repeats are also allowed between weeks.
- 6 teams, with a potential increase to 8 depending on manager sign-ups. (we would assume 8 teams)
- Regular round robin into poffs, with poffs format TBD depending on number of teams.
- Each player is only allowed to play a single tier every week

Blurb to describe the format in vivalospride terms for any of my fellow vivalospride-like individuals that hate reading

Each team has set SV slots, and the remaining slots are FLEX slots. You can choose whoever you want for these FLEX slots but you must choose wisely. For example, if you have the greatest SM player of all time, you would draft them with the intention of using one of your FLEX slots on them pretty much the entire tournament. It also rewards people who can play multiple metas, being able to counter the opponent’s FLEX picks to deny them an advantage. Examples of this format in practice are plentiful, hypothetical and in NUCL 2, ask if confused.

Actual Description of Format

The Flex tiers is a new concept we will be introducing this tournament. An explanation for this can be seen here as initially proposed by malekith for last WCOP. These flex tiers would play the same role as the team chosen tiers proposed on that post, with available tiers ranging from SV all the way to RBY, with the possibility of Bo3 being included as well. So in other words, the pool of available tiers would, as of now, be: SV / SS / SM / ORAS / BW / DPP / ADV / GSC / RBY.

The way it would work, albeit a bit weird at first, is actually quite simple. Let’s say I am managing the MF BLOOMS, whereas someone else is managing the Limber Dittos, and we will be facing each other on the following week. Ideally, the tournament would have two deadlines: one for tier picking (lets say, for example, midnight EST Saturday), and one for actual lineups (11:59 PM EST Sunday). Once every team has made their choice, the host will announce on the manager channel on UU cord every teams pick, which is when we will be informed of them.

SV1
SV2
Flex 1A => SM
Flex 2A => GSC
Flex 1B => SS
Flex 2B => ADV
Flex 1C => DPP
Flex 2C => BW
Flex 1D => RBY
Flex 2D => SM

would be ->

SV1
SV 2
SS
SM
SM
BW
DPP
ADV
GSC

Note there's no back and forth between managers and/or hosts, nor is there a priority order for picking. Every team simply blindly picks their tiers, and then we send our respective lineups by the end of the week as normal. So once tiers (flex tiers) are chosen, the tour basically plays out as normal, just with a goofy tier ordering.

Remember: the same team can't pick two of the same tiers, but the same tier can be picked twice between both teams. I can't choose BW and BW, but I can choose BW while my opponents also choose BW. This adds a lot of strategy and decision making for managers, but that's not something I will cover here. In the event of tie breaks, it would just be played out as normal since they already use the concept of flex tiers: SV, Team A, Team B.

Things of note to discuss:
- 2 SV slots vs 4 SV slots (must be an even number), and therefore more or less FLEX slots based off of that
- Potentially more than 10 slots total?
- Including fairy gens as solified non flex slots and having less flex slots (personally p against this but it was technically the original format presented for NUCL so worth mentioning)
- Bo3 inclusion?
- Manager buy flat 15k?
- Whatever other questions you may or may not have.

Right now the exact dates of this tournament are TBD but will be discussed amongst the moderation team very soon in terms of specifics being finalized.

 

[Teh]

i participated in the NUCL II with this format and it was an absolutely wonderful time, it's really nice to see other tiers picking up the format for their own tournaments.

just a few things:

• keep 2 SV and 8 flex because having 4 places less emphasis on the flex slots, which IMO is the best part of the tournament
• having a single bo3 SV slot would be nice to have more SV games played while also keeping the vast majority of the slots as flex
• solid fairygen slots are a BAD idea. there's no reason to give them special treatment. NUCL had 1-8 as flex and it worked wonderfully and there were no complaints
• do the same self buy prices as NUCL II, 15k for one and 35k for both. more than one self buy should be heavily discouraged to encourage more strategizing in the drafting phase

 

[Tree69420]

as someone who played in nucl and did work in both sv and oldgen slots, wanted to give my perspective

bo3 sv seems awkward with only 2 sv, 4 sv seems questionable based on signup numbers but i could maybe see it
i dont think having 4 sv really takes away that much from flex because 8 flex is still in the signfiicant majority of games,
HOWEVER i heavily disagree with going any lower than 8 flex slots

@ fairygens NUCL worked out great without special treatment for them so i think it should stay that way
not sure on manager prices considering i havent managed but i think they should be on the expensive end because they are often the strongest/most flexible players in a format that really rewards flexibility

 

[ASKOV]

FREE UUBERS

fr now:

- make it 2 sv
- make it 10 slots
- keep fairy gens as flex slots except for sv
- bo3 would be interesting but not as multigens option (i.e: Bo3 SM would be nice, but not Bo3 between SV, SS and SM)
- honestly would prefer to have some price based on previous performance(s) from the manager that is selfbuying themselves

 

[Colin]

I like 2 sv 8 flex slots. I'm paranoid of another scenario like last year's UUBD where the playerbase was burned out from playing UUPL or UUFPL, UU open, and UU ladder tournament back to back, often simultaneously. I think having more flex slots leans into this format's strengths and makes it less of a burden for a ton of SV signups to appear

 

[tko]

15k self buy is a meme please don't do this, some managers are easily worth more than that lol

 

[Cynde]

4 sv slots seems better, much more engaging for a player base that is for sure more active in cg compared to old gens, doesn't make sense to me to give so much more weightage to old gen slots vs cg slots just for the sake of covering most of the old gens.

don't increase the number of slots

don't need to do the fairy gen set slots thing

bo3 always ends up being kinda meh to prepare for over the course of a tour and there's no real reason to have it over just a bo1

either no manager buys or make make them 5k-10k more expensive.

 

[Crushy]

I think the proposed format of 2 SV slots with flex slots works fine, but i think the ability to select SV as a flex slot should be an option, but 2-4 SV slots seems like the right amount overall. The inclusion of Bo3 might be neat in a tiebreak situation. However, it could also be worth exploring a whacky option for a Bo3 slot where 1) each team sumbits 3 players for that slot, 2) the starting player for the series is made known while the others are mentioned somewhere in the lineup, player slot switches between games, and 3) the starting player and the game 2 and game 3 players would be made known at the end of the week. Whether something like this would revolve around 1 tier or 3 is up for debate, but i think the idea suits the theme of a true flex slot, although there is also the issue of whether teams would have enough players to fulfill this slot on top of the remaining 9 slots, but an idea like this potentially gives more players the opportunity to get a game in in as well.

As far as self-buying manager prices go, i did already kinda talk about this to some, but i do think 15k as a minimum wouldn't reflect potential and i do think there is a potential solution to this. Now, this formula is strictly based on previous tours that have occurred during SV and SV alone, although it could consider previous generations if thats desired by the masses. Basically, a minimum self-buy amount does undersell a potential more accurate cost considering how high players have been drafted for in the past. Although UUCL would be the first of its kind as a format in UU history, previous formats do tend to share similarities. For example, the typical cost for self-buying managers has been 15k, draft costs range from 3k up to 30k, and the minimum retain amount has been 10k. Some formats involve editions of the same format previous year prices, or minimum cost, for players with a condition of say a + 3k factor. Drafts costs, strictly looking at SV, can be narrowed down further to 3k being the lowest draft price with 33k being the highest recorded price in an official SV UU tour. The same can be said for the highest player retain price in SV being 24k. In mentioning all of this, basically, a 15k self-buy cost doesn't address the potential cost of drafting a player if we consider the higher drafting prices in the past. What could be done to perhaps get a more accurate manager self-buy cost would be averaging out past minimum amounts and highest known amounts of SV UU tours; 1) minimum retain costs (10k), minimum self-buy costs (15k), highest sv player retain cost (24k), highest sv player draft cost (33k), and perhaps even minimum draft cost (3k), all divided by how ever many variables are worth considering. Averaging out these costs results in range of 17k-20k depending on what is and isn't included, but a cost within the range seems a little more, or at least should be, reflective of potential for a manager purchase. I haven't looked myself, but if this average included EVERY official UU tour, this range would probably be different. The inclusion of other factors, say Hall Of Fame or official sheet stuff is also up for debate. This isn't a perfectly thought out solution, but i think something like this could end up working.

On another note, maybe consider allowing National Dex UU to be a flex slot would be epic as well. That is all for now. Thanks for reading fellers!

 

[Bouff]

please don’t put in bo3 aside from rby in any capacity (going to assume this is multi gen like it was in past uupls which is annoying to draft for, but if it’s a cg bo3 that’s also lame and overhyped)

agree with memcho that 15k is extremely abusable for now i would just say maybe base it off wins / price from the last uupl they played…? there is probably a better criteria but i’m not sure what it’ll be

there may be more thoughts to post later but too sleepy to think about them

 

[Meru]

keep format exactly the same as nucl - 2 sv really drives home more the vibe of a champions league. 4 sv would be a meme

don’t forget to buy your rbyers

have manager prices scale according to number of sheet wins idgaf

 

[Pokeslice]

Hi as someone who managed and helped plan NUCL, I'm really excited to see others use the format we came up with a few moths ago, especially because it was a tour which ended up being our best in years. Just thought I'd drop some thoughts:

2 SV + 8 Flex is best imo and don't allow SV to be picked as a flex option. Part of joy of that tour was seeing the different strategy and matchups that came with minimal SV because managers were forced to be a bit more creative in the draft rather than just going all in on cg and calling it a day. We had originally thought that the tour would have been best with 4 or 3 SV, but after some internal thought, we realized that the spirit of the tour is in the Flex concept and not the fixed slots and it worked really well like this. This is also part of the reason of why there's no need to add SV into the Flex options or to have set fairy gen slots. At the end of the day, every tier got picked (almost) equally regardless, but it made for a more interesting tournament for everyone.

Re 6 vs 8 teams: We did 6 because of it being the first edition of the format and because we were specifically looking for a shorter length fun tour to help with perceived community burnout + expected signups, but I think expanding to 8 is probably the right idea for UU here. Besides the fact that UU is just a large enough player base to support that anyways and the format has been proven to work now, the cool part about this format is that it can thrive when there's more spread out pools in a way that a normal PL style tour can't because of how the Flex slot dynamics works. Some weeks you might get every gen in play and some weeks you might end up with 3 repeated tiers, so when there isn't two SCL level players in the pool for every slot, it adds a lot of variety to how drafting, picking, Flexing is done. For example, in NUCL, I specifically tried to monopolize the weak SS pool while grabbing flex players who were super versatile and could be thrown in all over the board, especially in tiers where people were drafting only one specialist like RBY. This led to a ton of manager mind games between us and other teams who had strong players in certain tiers, but didn't want to get doubled up on with their picks since they expected us to pick them. Just one example of a strategy used based around more spread out pools, but every team had a different one at draft which was pretty awesome.

Some other thoughts:

Make sure the tier pick deadlines are communicated effectively beforehand because that was a big annoyance logistically that we had to work through and also how you want TB to look. Does the higher seed pick first like normal or should it still be in the spirit of flexing and everyone picks secretly at the same time? Tuthur will tell you his team lost the tour because we just did it like a normal tb, so probably worth considering.


I saw someone mention NatDex UU above. I have zero clue how much overlap there is or if that's even a real tier from the community perspective, but I do believe that this format is the type of tour to experiment in by adding different tiers. I'm on record somewhere saying that this format will solve the gen 10 issue of having too many tiers and not enough slots for these side tours because flexing allows for every tier to shine and for there to be extra variety and I believe it entirely. The more options, within reason, can be pretty cool I think.

I highly highly recommend managing for those who are on the fence about it. This format was the most fun I've had managing or playing in a tour in years.

 

[umbry]

Already discussed some of the points in the hosting channel and some other users also discussed these points at length so I'll keep it short, just want to echo.

re: selfbuys I believe a flat 20k is best, not too abusable, also doesn't base first iteration prices on performances from other tournaments.

re: slots I like 2 fixed SV slots with 8 oldgens flex slots, there were talks of a possible oldgens focused team tournaments about a year ago iirc which received some support, the nucl format is a great way to achieve this and still keep SV involved and also a fun new format which is pretty hype.

re: tiers I would just keep it simple and only include the main generations, no bo3 outside of rby, also too many tiers might make it pretty awkward for the individual tiers to get enough representation, perhaps the number of slots can be revisited depending on the number of signups? For the time being I think we can strike a good balance with this.

 

[vivalospride]

mostly gonna echo umbry’s post above but we’ve all discussed and landed on a few things that are pretty much “final” I would say

- 2 SV slots, SV is not an eligible flex pick
- with 2 SV, 8 flex slots
- Manager buys will be 20k flat
(these r the main two things to communicate)
- bo3 no go (aside from RBY)
- no natdex UU, prioritizing the pools most true to the uu community on this first run through, making sure they can as much individual representation as possible
- as slice mentioned in his post UU will be going with 8 teams unless there is a manager signup drought (fingers crossed)
- tiebreakers will remain the way they always are, with higher seed choosing first, no secrets like the way it is with flex picks

for the most part, this tournament is identical to NUCL 2 in terms of formatting, which was mostly the goal

if there is a massive uproar or smth we can ofc talk more abt specifics, but this is otherwise final and I hope we can let the quality of the tournament speak for itself

also,

MANAGER SIGN UPS GO UP THIS SUNDAY JULY 6TH

BE THERE OR BE SQUARE

 

[Runo]

Ok so I didn't make the post in time bummer, I will not contest "no NatDex UU" because "main generations only" is clean and simple and I frankly have no stake in this tour to begin with (although I will say this argument holds a little less water if Ubers UU gets in).

With the goal of adding onto the NatDex UU mentions for future reference however; the community overlap isn't really high and it hasn't been that way since its peak at Gen 8, this is true. People such as pdt, Lyssa, Denial, Drud, other notables no longer play the tier anymore. NatDex UU's community is fairly insular and has developed largely independent of the greater UU community. It's more likely a NatDex OU main will pick up NatDex UU than a UU main picking up NatDex UU for perspective.

In regards to how "real" this tier is to the greater UU community I can't really speak on that as I don't interact with the greater UU community myself outside of a select group of people, but last time I was in UU Discord (ergo a couple of months ago for last year's classic hosting) the term "NatDex" or something to that extent was just blocked by the automod so that's a little bit telling.

I will say that if community overlap and tier "realness" are concerns, this only gets alleviated if NatDex UU is given the chance to prove their worth. RUGL gave NatDex RU this chance and it was recived fairly well by the RU community. Managers and players who had never gotten seriously involved with NDRU were interested in building the tier and sharing concepts and some stuck around for tours such as NatDex RU Open. It is definitely plausible that a tour such as UUCL can be the showcase people are looking for.

Unsure how well NDUU's own tour playerbase would mesh with the idea of Flex slots but in a more standard setting users such as Danbear02, Iride, R1C3M4N, HoodedZack, Sealoo, and Micaiah are very strong options while users like Adriyun, awyp, db, Kate, Dunoks, and LBN have strong tier fundamentals and stronger showings elsewhere on site to supplement. This in addtion to good support options such as Dabman1069, Rafadude, TBIC106, Niadev, SapoDaG30, Velcroc, etc. I definitely don't think the pool would be barren or lopsided on that end, I suppose that is up to manager interpretation but again you have to actually take a chance on the tier to even ask that question.

This plea isn't even just for UUCL, a dedicated UUFPL slot instead of a meme bo3 in one slot for one week only would go a long way. I don't know where else UU puts its CA prizes towards but possibly UU Snake Draft too if that doesn't have a CA prize?

Again I don't really want to contest the above post's decision here so in conclusion, pm/ping on discord for your support for a #NATDEXUUFPL to help a starving NatDex UU player near you. Ignore if heartless grrr.

 

[bumboclaat]

I agree with most of what Runo said. If there are 8 flex slots one for each old gen of UU makes sense and there isn’t room for NDUU nor is it reasonable to include. Although the ship has sailed for this tour, NDUU should be considered for a slot in a different tour. I’m a NatDex player in general, but not a NDUU player specifically. As an outside observer, I’m always blown away by the quality of the pool NDUU is able to provide on a consistent basis. This is also with many of the players Runo mentioned being whisked away to other tiers, which would not be an issue in a UU forum.

The NDUU playerbase contains both the quantity and quality to make for a solid slot. As mentioned earlier, NDRU was included in RUGL and was well received despite having a smaller playerbase than NDUU. When I asked how the tier was received the response I got was that people really liked the tier, but the lack of builders was a point of frustration at times. That was valid criticism, but also not something I’d be concerned about with NDUU due to a much larger playerbase.

Additionally, including excluding NDUU as a ‘true’ UU tier is just kind of baffling. Post DPP UU is defined by its relationship with OU. It is simply the Pokémon that don’t receive enough use in OU minus those that are too powerful. Consequently, I struggle to see any meaningful differentiation between NDUU and SVUU. This attitude and verbiage only exacerbates the unnecessary rift between offical tiers and their ND counterparts. Furthermore, it stymies a mutually beneficial relationship where both communities get exposure to both new tiers and people they may like.

I’m generally for inclusion and when I saw Ubers UU being incorporated into UU tours I thought that was cool and a great decision, not that they're fake or illegitimate. I don’t know how Ubers UU is currently perceived in the UU community, but it was fantastic to see that they were given a chance. It would be wonderful if UU leadership would be willing to extend that courtesy and respect to NDUU in the future. NDUU doesn’t have to be in a UU tour in the future, but it should at least considered, given it is reasonable to do so.

 

[Lyssa]

In regards to how "real" this tier is to the greater UU community I can't really speak on that as I don't interact with the greater UU community myself outside of a select group of people, but last time I was in UU Discord (ergo a couple of months ago for last year's classic hosting) the term "NatDex" or something to that extent was just blocked by the automod so that's a little bit telling.

Will quickly address this but I just wanted to say that "natdex" being a banword in the discord is something I did a long time ago as an inside joke and really means nothing as to how the wider UU community sees natdex. I lifted it earlier and I apologise for the misunderstanding there.

[this follow up is my own opinion and not on behalf of the whole UU leadership etc]

Ok so I didn't make the post in time bummer, I will not contest "no NatDex UU" because "main generations only" is clean and simple and I frankly have no stake in this tour to begin with (although I will say this argument holds a little less water if Ubers UU gets in).

I’m generally for inclusion and when I saw Ubers UU being incorporated into UU tours I thought that was cool and a great decision, not that they're fake or illegitimate. I don’t know how Ubers UU is currently perceived in the UU community, but it was fantastic to see that they were given a chance. It would be wonderful if UU leadership would be willing to extend that courtesy and respect to NDUU in the future. NDUU doesn’t have to be in a UU tour in the future, but it should at least considered, given it is reasonable to do so.

On the topic of Ubers UU (in UUBD, as that was the only tournament i was somewhat involved in that had the tier): I feel like that experiment was a failure. I'm not sure totally sure how it came to be as I wasn't part of that decision, from my understanding a mix of people not wanting 4 SV slots and a small existing group of shared community members across the two tiers (due to the big money tour the tier started off with), but the bridging never came to be and the slot felt really isolated. There was basically no discussion for the linked Ubers UU games in UU discord, people didn't seem to care for the tier and no new faces from the community seemed to have interest in UU, joined the discord or ended up sticking around afterwards. It felt like a collaboration where UU had nothing to gain, and the decision to remove it from our second tournament this year wasn't a hard one to make, especially when we would've had to come to compromises to fit it in the new format.

I'm afraid this would be the case once again and I don't think theres a lot that could convince me at this point in time, on paper the collaboration with Ubers UU made a lot of sense and it didn't really get anywhere. This is not me doubting that NatDex UU is a great community with a variety of good players, contributors or personalities, but me doubting that there's anything to gain for us, at least if things are handled this same way. First I'd want to gauge how much interest there's from both and then slowly start building the bridge without rushing into a tournament where the two parties are co-living without really caring much at all about each others. RBY UU started with a subforum individual and space within the discord, then slowly got integrated to the second team tournament, the farm league and even UU classic. Similarly to the other tiers in this debate RBY UU doesn't fall under our wing but rather RBY communitys, and they made a huge effort in closing the gap between the two and building their own space within UU. This is not me making a promise or saying it would work for certain, but it's not always as simple as sharing a tournament like in RU's case, and I'd like to see more before i'm convinced.

 

[Crushy]

I want to start off in saying that this post isn't made with the intent to try and change the decision that happened. This was a good discussion to have and get clarification for overall. I acknowledge that a decision on the format of UUCL has been finalized and I am in favor of the outcome as well, but I do want to bring up potential considerations for future UU tours that may be worthwhile whether they happen or not. My two main proposals start with a proper argument for National Dex inclusion in future UU tournaments, and to create the opportunity for experimentation in UU tours.

Firstly, the comparison of Ubers UU and Natdex UU is a flawed one. The only real similarity between the two formats is being subordinate tiers created by the usage of the tier above them. One is a literal Ubers meta above OU, and the other is a lower that follows the traditional tiering hierarchy of Ubers -> PU+. The difference in power level of these two tiers is drastically different. It's understandable how the addition of UUbers failed to truly resonate with the UU community in the sense that an Ubers meta doesn't really have similarities that translate well to other UU metagames. The same might not be true for Natdex UU. Visually, the current NDUU roster contains many mons that are UU in old gen UU metas, with only a select few outliers of mons allowed that have been UUBL or higher in UU's tiering history. The same can be said for SS National Dex UU. Essentially, most of the mons in these tiers are mons that the UU community has experience with all in play, knowledge, and building, so there's reason to believe that skills from the existing UU main tiers may be transferable to both SS and SV National Dex UU metagames, so preparation for these tiers wouldn't be as frustrating and difficult as it seemed to be for the Ubers meta.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not saying that UUbers shouldn't be included in UU tours, it's good to experiment with changes like this if the style of a tourment allows and the community is there for it, but moreso I think Natdex formats might have gotten a better reception of inclusion in arguably being a more accessible meta to the UU community, but only time will tell. Regardless, UUFPL seems like the place to try this out.

Secondly, what I mean by saying "create the opportunity for experimentation in UU tours," I advocate in the creating of a formal testing ground for metagame changes within official UU tiers. As it stands as far as UU goes, UUFPL has been the only tournament that allows for "suspect tests" to happen for existing old gen metagames. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen more often as a means for modernizing an old gens for an ever changing playerbase. While it is a great thing that this tour allows for experimentation like this, I think there is a fundamental issue with this process of unofficial tours being the only real mediums for this kind of testing. I believe that this kind of experimentation needs to exist within official tournaments in some way, whether it's all or even just one official tournament that allows for suspect slots. I mention this with not only the everlooming issue of ADV's past tiering philosophy, but also as a way for other old gen UU metas to be able to explore controversial things that playerbases can often disagree on. This might also go beyond the scope of just UU, but it's a good thing to be able to gather data on things, especially in highly competitive environments, despite whether or not the changes become implemented or rejected in a metagame. Above all though, the direction that UU is taking under this leadership is a hopeful one. :]

 

[goldmason]

Hi I recently got pulled in to host this after hosting NUCL which was a blast

One big thing I want opinions on Pokeslice Meru Teh Tree69420 from people who played last time; I think tier lock sucked and would be worth removing, think it felt a bit antithetical to the tour's base concept.

Also echoing slice that this was THE most fun tour to manage/host (outside of hosting logistics being a little fucked up); anyone on the fence, this is the tour to sign up for. Its incredibly fun.

 

[Pokeslice]

I think tier lock sucked and would be worth removing, think it felt a bit antithetical to the tour's base concept.

I definitely agree. In general I’m not a very big fan of tier lock, but it felt really stupid here specifically. When the slots are constantly changing, you want to be able to throw anyone anywhere and we also found in NUCL that a lot more people were willing to play tiers that they didn’t want to play or didn’t usually play when it was seen as a one-off flex moment. For example, devin locked out of RBY on his signup, but week one we had accidentally thrown him into the tier (where he won goat) because he offered to try it out thinking it would be a fun thing to pick up a random tier for a week when our team needed it. Countless other examples as well beyond this (Kiyo in GSC, me in GSC, BB in RBY, Devin again in BW or ORAS, etc etc). I’d highly recommend getting rid of tier lock like Mason said and reverting back to the good old “tiers preferred” for this tournament. In NUCL next year I expect we’ll do the same.

 

[umbry]

I'd like to thank the above posts for the feedback, it came up a lot in discussion how tier lock kinda just goes against the spirit/idea of the tournament of being willing to be slotted into as many tiers as possible to help your team have the best odds, besides what we know now that it can just potentially be inconvenient as mason and pokeslice outlined. Tier lock does try to address the "pricefixing" element but theres quite a few potential cons for this exact format so as I just posted in UU discord we can potentially explore some other options for signups, I thought of the following:

1) Get rid of the tier options in signups entirely (perhaps too radical of a change)
2) Narrow down the tier options to only SV (default pick) / Flex Slot (oldgens)

Assuming that with the current format managers get a full day to discuss lineups with their teams, you should always able to communicate what tiers you're willing / not willing to play on a weekly basis, bar unfortunate cases. I kind of like option 2, it does address pricefixing almost entirely, perhaps those two options can be what is "binding"? Now it all kind of depends on how big of a "problem" we think pricefixing is in an unofficial tournament, if it's worth addressing at all, and on how important we think the information from tiers preferred that comes before auction is to help managers prevent possible awkward scenarios after draft ends. Keeping it simple and posting regular signups without tiers not played is always an option.

 

[goldmason]

I was definitely thinking just Tiers Preferred (non-binding) without a Tiers not played option at all. That way you can still communicate what you want to play without any sort of tier lock. As far as pricefixing goes I'd rather handle that from a hosting angle for a tour like this? Think its easier case by case, or even just not including a spot for unavailability; with nearly every slot being flex with no lock I think the idea of accommodating unavailability marginally goes out the window

Def open to these options if they're popular but not really sure they're needed.