-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Announcement UMPL V - Format Discussion Thread
- Thread starter sleid
- Start date
I don't really have strong opinions on anything other than
12 Slots
Regarding 2v2 honestly I think the playerbase overlap with 1v1 is a bit overstated, we can field 16 slots fine and even if some of those aren't dedicated 2v2 players it's a fun tier to learn and with at least 1 dedicated 2v2 player per team you can learn and be passed teams if necessary pretty easily. If NFE can field a second slot then this tour should 100% be 12 slots.
3rd Managers
I think this should definitely be at least an option for those that want it but I don't think it should be forced because 2 managers has been fine historically.
12 Slots
Regarding 2v2 honestly I think the playerbase overlap with 1v1 is a bit overstated, we can field 16 slots fine and even if some of those aren't dedicated 2v2 players it's a fun tier to learn and with at least 1 dedicated 2v2 player per team you can learn and be passed teams if necessary pretty easily. If NFE can field a second slot then this tour should 100% be 12 slots.
3rd Managers
I think this should definitely be at least an option for those that want it but I don't think it should be forced because 2 managers has been fine historically.
Hi wanted to give my opinions!
Retains: I’m personally against this idea, but not 100% against it
Franchise: Sure why not they sound funny
UMFL: Sure why not they sound funny
12 Slots: I don’t see why not, especially with 6 UMs, this allots for fair representation for all
3rd Manager: With 6 UMs, having 2 managers that can cover all of them could be difficult, and so a 3rd makes this easier. As mentioned earlier, this should be a option not a flat out requirement, although I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want even more support…
I will say, while I’m all for 3rd managers, I do want to highlight this real quick
Self-buys: I could write a whole ass thing for this, but I’d just be rewriting what has already been said, so I will be keeping them simple. 15k first purchase 20k second no third buy. Honestly, even only one manager being to self buy isn’t too too bad, but that might demotivate some people from managing so ehh…
Retains: I’m personally against this idea, but not 100% against it
Franchise: Sure why not they sound funny
UMFL: Sure why not they sound funny
12 Slots: I don’t see why not, especially with 6 UMs, this allots for fair representation for all
3rd Manager: With 6 UMs, having 2 managers that can cover all of them could be difficult, and so a 3rd makes this easier. As mentioned earlier, this should be a option not a flat out requirement, although I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want even more support…
I will say, while I’m all for 3rd managers, I do want to highlight this real quick
This is a valid point, which is what keeping from being 100 percent for 3rd managers, and honestly, UMFL can be a nice way to test if 3rd manager is fine
Self-buys: I could write a whole ass thing for this, but I’d just be rewriting what has already been said, so I will be keeping them simple. 15k first purchase 20k second no third buy. Honestly, even only one manager being to self buy isn’t too too bad, but that might demotivate some people from managing so ehh…
Also after having a talk with my other UM friends and a small discussion in the UM discord server. I would like to put up the discussion for the total credits.
Proposal :-
Since it is more likely that UMPL will be 3 managers so considering that fact, i would say that if u allow 2 manager self buys, make it such that the total credit after self buys is divisible among 3 managers equally (e.g. - 150k then 120k after 2 self buys, say. It is divisible by 3 as 40k for each manger). However this is just a proposal.
Possibilities :-
With the 2 manager format, should be pretty simple. The total credits that can be used are :-
If 10 slots:
Preference (in order from 1 to 5) :-
2. To be honest, I like this idea too but 160k is a lot of budget. It can make a team overpowered and at the same time, u can build a literal army of 30 players in a team lol which turns out to be an issue cuz of clash of too many opinions among players and subs. That's the only reason why I am against this. Rest the format seems fine about this
3. 10 slots isn't much and having a 13 player team is kind of a lack of activity i suppose ? But like it used to be the optimum team composition back in earlier days so I trust this format. And having 3 subs pretty much covers that issue so yea it's a preference as well
4. 140k is fine with 4 sub slots but once again, having 10 slots is the point here. It makes the team overpowered and gives opportunity to upbid recklessly. And once again, a team can have around 20 players in this format, so not much in favour for it. Though I liked it last year, this year I don't think it would do the same because of the new bloods that have been going crazy in tours all around
5. Pretty less budget if u ask me and having only 12 players makes it tougher to sub in. With only 2 subs, we can't realistically do anything though we have 3 managers. Additionally once 2 players r subbed in, u can't sub more in a week and I have seen many tours go all out subbing by week 7 if they are out / already qualified so not a fan of this at all.
With this, I once again want to ssy the same thing. Let me know your thoughts down below. And hoping everyone a good luck and have fun in this tour. Looking forward to seeing u guys in the tour. Thank you!
Proposal :-
Since it is more likely that UMPL will be 3 managers so considering that fact, i would say that if u allow 2 manager self buys, make it such that the total credit after self buys is divisible among 3 managers equally (e.g. - 150k then 120k after 2 self buys, say. It is divisible by 3 as 40k for each manger). However this is just a proposal.
Possibilities :-
With the 2 manager format, should be pretty simple. The total credits that can be used are :-
If 10 slots:
- 10 slots + 2 subs = 120k total budget
- 10 slots + 3 subs = 130k total budget
- 10 slots + 4 subs = 140k total budget (Last year's format)
- 12 slots + 3 subs = 150k total budget
- 12 slots + 4 subs = 160k total budget
Preference (in order from 1 to 5) :-
- 12 slots + 3 subs = 150k
- 12 slots + 4 subs = 160k
- 10 slots + 3 subs = 130k
- 10 slots + 4 subs = 140k
- 10 slots + 2 subs = 120k
2. To be honest, I like this idea too but 160k is a lot of budget. It can make a team overpowered and at the same time, u can build a literal army of 30 players in a team lol which turns out to be an issue cuz of clash of too many opinions among players and subs. That's the only reason why I am against this. Rest the format seems fine about this
3. 10 slots isn't much and having a 13 player team is kind of a lack of activity i suppose ? But like it used to be the optimum team composition back in earlier days so I trust this format. And having 3 subs pretty much covers that issue so yea it's a preference as well
4. 140k is fine with 4 sub slots but once again, having 10 slots is the point here. It makes the team overpowered and gives opportunity to upbid recklessly. And once again, a team can have around 20 players in this format, so not much in favour for it. Though I liked it last year, this year I don't think it would do the same because of the new bloods that have been going crazy in tours all around
5. Pretty less budget if u ask me and having only 12 players makes it tougher to sub in. With only 2 subs, we can't realistically do anything though we have 3 managers. Additionally once 2 players r subbed in, u can't sub more in a week and I have seen many tours go all out subbing by week 7 if they are out / already qualified so not a fan of this at all.
With this, I once again want to ssy the same thing. Let me know your thoughts down below. And hoping everyone a good luck and have fun in this tour. Looking forward to seeing u guys in the tour. Thank you!
Hello I already said a few words on discord but continuing my thoughts here
12 Slots (2nd 2v2 slot): Good idea and much needed. Addresses the fact that the same 6 people have been starting 2v2 every tour and motivated people that played 2v2pl should be allowed to get their chance. Moreover managers are forced to draft 2 ppl that play the tier so players wont end up on an island with minimal support which was a complaint some players had in past tours.
Also one of the 1v1 slots should be bo7. It's the most competitive form of the tier and most players that will play in this already prefer it.
12 Slots (2nd 2v2 slot): Good idea and much needed. Addresses the fact that the same 6 people have been starting 2v2 every tour and motivated people that played 2v2pl should be allowed to get their chance. Moreover managers are forced to draft 2 ppl that play the tier so players wont end up on an island with minimal support which was a complaint some players had in past tours.
Also one of the 1v1 slots should be bo7. It's the most competitive form of the tier and most players that will play in this already prefer it.
I'd like to join Kaif's idea. I think a 1v1 slot in BO7 is a very good idea, even though I don't play that level. I'd really like to see a 1v1 in BO7.
Retains Retains are fun but I think UM player base changed too much since last year to make it relevant
UMFL this is a good idea
12 slots I like the idea, representing more NFE and 2v2 players is hype
Self-buys. 15k for 1 manager, 35k for 2.
3rd managers I like the idea also, 3 managers is really a good idea and can help to cover every thiers, as UM is really big in terms of different tiers. but i also think we should allowed only 2 managers if peoples wants to
UMFL this is a good idea
12 slots I like the idea, representing more NFE and 2v2 players is hype
Self-buys. 15k for 1 manager, 35k for 2.
3rd managers I like the idea also, 3 managers is really a good idea and can help to cover every thiers, as UM is really big in terms of different tiers. but i also think we should allowed only 2 managers if peoples wants to
I really like this too
So gonna give my 2 cents on the ideas being floated for this UMPL
Retentions: In my opinion, this might not be the best idea as someplayers have grown a lot during this time, emergence of players like FishyRoads, Finchely, Celeste from last season means that franchises which drafted these players in their less stellar periods, ie..when they were merely developing got them at a lower price. This makes it mildly unfair as it would enable someone to retain some insane picks like momlover, Happyish or Xu for 3000 and 4500 respectively. That is honestly just bonkers. If we are to allow retains it needs to be at a higher price. Like have them valued at 15k or higher(if they went for higher).
Franchises: Would be in favor of this, but I think we are missing some very funny names that we could potentially get this year. Think names like Unofficial Metangs, LUMineon lights, Bactrian NUMel. Like C'mon we haven't even gotten peak franchise names yet.
Unofficial Metagames Farming League (UMFL): this is an idea I do support. I do think that it should be 6 teams with 6 slots and 3 subs or something small like that, However, seeing out playerbase and how many we but this could genuinely help facilitate a pipeline to actually develop the UM player base. Here are some data and stats
Last UMPL, we saw 216 signups and 124 drafted players(this counts managers who self bought). This mean that we had 92 players who went undrafted. The UM playerbase has certainly grown over this past year, and I will include the rate based on tour signups in a bit, however this indicated that we would have more than enough to run a 6 team UMFL with atleast 15 players a side at min if we retain the signup numbers. Will get back with the numbers. Even if we increase starting slots to 12 for 8 teams, and assuming 3 extra signups for teams, we can expect UMFL to have 68 which at 6 teams should give a solid 11 per team(again can get more accurate numbers in a followup post).
Slot Increase: I am also in favor of increasing slots to 12 per week.
Self-buys: last year were a flat 15K rating, but I do feel that it would be justified to have a 15k for 1st self-buy and a 20k for 2nd self buy. This would be more appropriate because say 2 elite players are managers who self buy, that would naturally inflate the prices of the good players in the auction pool. By increasing cost for second self-buy, we are ensuring that this is taken into consideration and does not unfairly support the otherwise stronger team.
3rd Manager: managing RCoP, I have also noticed that this is becoming a smogon standard, and I think that this is certainly been helpful for the teams. I would certainly vouch for the inclusion of a 3rd manager if the teams want to do so.
Retentions: In my opinion, this might not be the best idea as someplayers have grown a lot during this time, emergence of players like FishyRoads, Finchely, Celeste from last season means that franchises which drafted these players in their less stellar periods, ie..when they were merely developing got them at a lower price. This makes it mildly unfair as it would enable someone to retain some insane picks like momlover, Happyish or Xu for 3000 and 4500 respectively. That is honestly just bonkers. If we are to allow retains it needs to be at a higher price. Like have them valued at 15k or higher(if they went for higher).
Franchises: Would be in favor of this, but I think we are missing some very funny names that we could potentially get this year. Think names like Unofficial Metangs, LUMineon lights, Bactrian NUMel. Like C'mon we haven't even gotten peak franchise names yet.
Unofficial Metagames Farming League (UMFL): this is an idea I do support. I do think that it should be 6 teams with 6 slots and 3 subs or something small like that, However, seeing out playerbase and how many we but this could genuinely help facilitate a pipeline to actually develop the UM player base. Here are some data and stats
Last UMPL, we saw 216 signups and 124 drafted players(this counts managers who self bought). This mean that we had 92 players who went undrafted. The UM playerbase has certainly grown over this past year, and I will include the rate based on tour signups in a bit, however this indicated that we would have more than enough to run a 6 team UMFL with atleast 15 players a side at min if we retain the signup numbers. Will get back with the numbers. Even if we increase starting slots to 12 for 8 teams, and assuming 3 extra signups for teams, we can expect UMFL to have 68 which at 6 teams should give a solid 11 per team(again can get more accurate numbers in a followup post).
Slot Increase: I am also in favor of increasing slots to 12 per week.
Self-buys: last year were a flat 15K rating, but I do feel that it would be justified to have a 15k for 1st self-buy and a 20k for 2nd self buy. This would be more appropriate because say 2 elite players are managers who self buy, that would naturally inflate the prices of the good players in the auction pool. By increasing cost for second self-buy, we are ensuring that this is taken into consideration and does not unfairly support the otherwise stronger team.
3rd Manager: managing RCoP, I have also noticed that this is becoming a smogon standard, and I think that this is certainly been helpful for the teams. I would certainly vouch for the inclusion of a 3rd manager if the teams want to do so.
Forwarding support for a 1v1 bo7 slot. Not only do most mainers enjoy it far more than 5, it easily outstrips 5 in competitiveness + skill expression. UMPL serves as a perfect opportunity for players who may have never played 7 before to play in the format, solving the burnout issue that comes with an year's worth of building 6-7 teams a series.
Last edited:
Hello! UM CL hat on, speaking officially and all that. I want to progress the state of this thread based on what I've been reading in here, so that folks have a better idea of what is likely coming, and thus can complain discuss more effectively on the topics.
Franchises: It seems folks are not onboard with the idea of franchises, and that's fine. This can get revisited if someone's got strong takes or whatever, but I think that for the moment, there seems to be no larger community sentiment that franchises of any sort should be enforced or introduced on a mechanical level. Naturally, we encourage building consistent team identities, but there will be no written-in-rules mechanisms to create or mandate franchises.
Retains: While the sentiment of this topic was more divided, a few strong reasons brought against it (particularly the lack of forewarning) and the motivation to ensure that major additions like this come with only significant backing, we'd like to put a pin in retains and revisit it next year with the intent to add it then - this will resolve the forewarning issue primarily, and it is our hope with one year of "retains are coming in 2026" that we can include them next year assuming no major backlash in the future following the discussion then.
UMFL: I think it's likely for some form of UMFL to exist this year. How it does is currently up for question. The two most likely outcomes are a 6x6 where UMPL-drafted players cannot participate, or something like 6x8 or 6x10 where UMPL-drafted players are unable to play a format that they signed up for/played in UMPL. However, I would like to tie the format to a sanity check of UMPL signups, both to ensure that we'd likely have possible signups, and to avoid potential bad actors. My inclination is that UMPL-drafted players would be barred from participating, but that could be the wrong approach. I want this conversation to come back informally once we see what UMPL signups are like.
Third managers: This seems popular. It would not be necessitated, teams could sign up with two or three managers, but I see little reason to prohibit this. We reserve the right to pull back on this if there are obvious problems with the third managers, but it is my hope the retains discussion will prevent the one side of "this team bought 3 of the best format players as managers", and that enough quality manager signups will prevent the other side of "we have a buncha subpar/questionable managers because people dragged along a random friend as their third manager" developing. I trust this community to handle third managers well.
Self buys: There were a lot of approaches to self-buys, all of them understandable and legitimate. This paragraph will assume third managers exist and that there is no appetite for a team self-buying all three managers, and that the total budget for the teams will be 10k*number of slots. I do not think three self-buys should be legitimate, frankly, but I am probably convinceable in another direction for this. I think that self-buys are good and should be available, however, I think the flat 15k from last year should probably be pushed up a few notches. I am not a fan of formulas, though I do not think inherently the cost for each manager purchased needs to be identical. I am currently the most fond of a flat 17.5k self-buy purchase capping out at two purchased managers (for a 35k total), but I can also see 15k+20k or even other numbers (single-buy or total) entirely. I am also open to hearing different angles, such as allowing 3 self buys etc.
+NFE +2v2 Doubles Slots: I've seen good push for and against. At this point if we do expand, it has to be this specific variant, no bo3/flex/coinflip slot or whatever. Both NFE and 2v2's community seem strongly in favor of this, with understandable concerns raised by some folks in and out of those communities about signup worries and logistics. I want to propose the following: Let's take a few days of player signups - if we see reasonable signups in both NFE and 2v2 Doubles, as determined by representatives from those communities, the host team, and UMCLs, we will expand to add these slots. We would also expand the number of subs required to 5, making a 15-player minimum roster. Is there desire to make that 6, a 16-player minimum roster? In theory, this would be "one sub for every UM" but could be a bit overwhelming and eat into UMFL potential? Do we even need to expand the number of subs from 4 even with a 12 slot roster?
1v1 Bo7: Hi, 1v1 friends! I absolutely need more discussion here, but particularly I have a technical question. Is 1v1 Bo7 its own signup section on the form? Or is a single 1v1 checkbox sufficient for both o5 and o7? What does it mean if someone locks into o7 and out of o5? Vice versa? Is that even a logical thing to lock out of one type but not the other if they are seperate boxes? Technical questions aside, I want more convos about this, because I have vague worries about the seeming unanimity of bo7 advocacy. I get that it's the most competitive way to play 1v1, but given that last year folks were pretty against it, I'm confused at the sudden shift to not a single voice being raised discouraging it.
Short summary: 1v1 bo7 and third managers yes, retains franchises no, UMFL and +2 Slots hopefully pending signup strength, self buys become more expensive
Conversations I want to see, ranked from "absolutely we need more talk about this before player/manager signups" to "if nobody talks about this for the rest of this thread we're fine": 1v1 Bo7 > Self-buys > +2 Slots > UMFL > Third managers > Retains > Franchises
Think of +2 slots as the "least pressing thing we still need to talk about" and UMFL as the "most in need of talk but if nobody does it's fine"
Franchises: It seems folks are not onboard with the idea of franchises, and that's fine. This can get revisited if someone's got strong takes or whatever, but I think that for the moment, there seems to be no larger community sentiment that franchises of any sort should be enforced or introduced on a mechanical level. Naturally, we encourage building consistent team identities, but there will be no written-in-rules mechanisms to create or mandate franchises.
Retains: While the sentiment of this topic was more divided, a few strong reasons brought against it (particularly the lack of forewarning) and the motivation to ensure that major additions like this come with only significant backing, we'd like to put a pin in retains and revisit it next year with the intent to add it then - this will resolve the forewarning issue primarily, and it is our hope with one year of "retains are coming in 2026" that we can include them next year assuming no major backlash in the future following the discussion then.
UMFL: I think it's likely for some form of UMFL to exist this year. How it does is currently up for question. The two most likely outcomes are a 6x6 where UMPL-drafted players cannot participate, or something like 6x8 or 6x10 where UMPL-drafted players are unable to play a format that they signed up for/played in UMPL. However, I would like to tie the format to a sanity check of UMPL signups, both to ensure that we'd likely have possible signups, and to avoid potential bad actors. My inclination is that UMPL-drafted players would be barred from participating, but that could be the wrong approach. I want this conversation to come back informally once we see what UMPL signups are like.
Third managers: This seems popular. It would not be necessitated, teams could sign up with two or three managers, but I see little reason to prohibit this. We reserve the right to pull back on this if there are obvious problems with the third managers, but it is my hope the retains discussion will prevent the one side of "this team bought 3 of the best format players as managers", and that enough quality manager signups will prevent the other side of "we have a buncha subpar/questionable managers because people dragged along a random friend as their third manager" developing. I trust this community to handle third managers well.
Self buys: There were a lot of approaches to self-buys, all of them understandable and legitimate. This paragraph will assume third managers exist and that there is no appetite for a team self-buying all three managers, and that the total budget for the teams will be 10k*number of slots. I do not think three self-buys should be legitimate, frankly, but I am probably convinceable in another direction for this. I think that self-buys are good and should be available, however, I think the flat 15k from last year should probably be pushed up a few notches. I am not a fan of formulas, though I do not think inherently the cost for each manager purchased needs to be identical. I am currently the most fond of a flat 17.5k self-buy purchase capping out at two purchased managers (for a 35k total), but I can also see 15k+20k or even other numbers (single-buy or total) entirely. I am also open to hearing different angles, such as allowing 3 self buys etc.
+NFE +2v2 Doubles Slots: I've seen good push for and against. At this point if we do expand, it has to be this specific variant, no bo3/flex/coinflip slot or whatever. Both NFE and 2v2's community seem strongly in favor of this, with understandable concerns raised by some folks in and out of those communities about signup worries and logistics. I want to propose the following: Let's take a few days of player signups - if we see reasonable signups in both NFE and 2v2 Doubles, as determined by representatives from those communities, the host team, and UMCLs, we will expand to add these slots. We would also expand the number of subs required to 5, making a 15-player minimum roster. Is there desire to make that 6, a 16-player minimum roster? In theory, this would be "one sub for every UM" but could be a bit overwhelming and eat into UMFL potential? Do we even need to expand the number of subs from 4 even with a 12 slot roster?
1v1 Bo7: Hi, 1v1 friends! I absolutely need more discussion here, but particularly I have a technical question. Is 1v1 Bo7 its own signup section on the form? Or is a single 1v1 checkbox sufficient for both o5 and o7? What does it mean if someone locks into o7 and out of o5? Vice versa? Is that even a logical thing to lock out of one type but not the other if they are seperate boxes? Technical questions aside, I want more convos about this, because I have vague worries about the seeming unanimity of bo7 advocacy. I get that it's the most competitive way to play 1v1, but given that last year folks were pretty against it, I'm confused at the sudden shift to not a single voice being raised discouraging it.
Short summary: 1v1 bo7 and third managers yes, retains franchises no, UMFL and +2 Slots hopefully pending signup strength, self buys become more expensive
Conversations I want to see, ranked from "absolutely we need more talk about this before player/manager signups" to "if nobody talks about this for the rest of this thread we're fine": 1v1 Bo7 > Self-buys > +2 Slots > UMFL > Third managers > Retains > Franchises
Think of +2 slots as the "least pressing thing we still need to talk about" and UMFL as the "most in need of talk but if nobody does it's fine"
Usually in 1v1 tours we have 2 different check boxes for Bo5 and Bo7 where both are offered. This allows players to demonstrate their preferences easily. We've never had anyone lock themselves only out of Bo5 or Bo7 that I can recall - if you're worried about it happening I suppose there could be a rule about signing up for one automatically lets you play for both so you don't have a stupid emergency situation
Last edited:
Hi 1v1 friend!
Like Itchy said they're different slots for signups normally, which hasn't yet caused a problem to my knowledge - though maybe we should have both slots on the "Tiers played", but only "1v1" as whole for "Tiers not played"? I feel like that would allow players to show preference without allowing for any weird Bo7-locked-out-of-Bo5 scenarios. I'm also not opposed to just having "1v1" be the only option for both slots for simplicity's sake.
I don't know what else can be said about adding 2 slots, both communities look heavily in favor of this, speaking for NFE again we'll have a competitive pool for sure, people who have concerns about this must have not been in touch with the community recently because we've had many newcomers, the discord is a lot more active than before, NFEPL has been a success, even the ongoing NFE SSNL is the biggest individual tournament we ever had in terms of signups, like there's no way NFE will struggle to fill 2 slots
Worst case scenario if NFE doesn't get enough signups (won't happen): make the initial decision 12 slots, if not enough signups cut it to 10 slots, because i think as managers you would much rather prefer to signup for a certain number of slots that diminishes rather than signing up for a number of slots that increases. Managers will know for sure what they signup for, it is harder to make a draftplan for a 12 slots tournament than a 10 slots tournament, and some pairs might want to get a 3rd manager for 12 slots, but might think they'll be fine for 10.
Thx the staff for transparency about this and encourage further discussion, greatly appreciated
Worst case scenario if NFE doesn't get enough signups (won't happen): make the initial decision 12 slots, if not enough signups cut it to 10 slots, because i think as managers you would much rather prefer to signup for a certain number of slots that diminishes rather than signing up for a number of slots that increases. Managers will know for sure what they signup for, it is harder to make a draftplan for a 12 slots tournament than a 10 slots tournament, and some pairs might want to get a 3rd manager for 12 slots, but might think they'll be fine for 10.
Thx the staff for transparency about this and encourage further discussion, greatly appreciated
Last edited:
Hi! I hosted this last year and had a blast, back again and wanna say something from a host perspective.
Think everything in a fairy's post looks good. One thing I will say as someone who hosts a lot of tours is that expanding minimum subs (especially if it comes with an auction funds increase) very disproportionately results in 3k armies. I've seen it happen in a lot of the tours I've hosted this year, again where slots expanding also added an extra sub and 10k per player increase to funds.
I think this is just bad for auction health. People can sit on massive reserves of cash and buy like 10 3ks at the end of the auction. Generally I strongly prefer a lower auction fund pool with a lower sub requirement (I've found 2-3 subs to be the sweet spot in other pls, but 4 is the upper bound of acceptable imo, and probably more acceptable in a tour like UMPL). If, like OMs, the idea is more minimum subs without a change to auction funds it should be fine, but I also question doing that at all personally; managers will simply save some extra funds for subs 9/10 times if they want the extra players, or they'll be incentivized to bid for bigger players, both of which are healthy for auctions.
Otherwise I have no real opinion on this stuff (I hate 3 managers in non-officials but I'll live). Big fan of putting player signups and just seeing the support for the slot expansion. Selfbuy at 17.5k or 15+20 both seem fine, I've done both in recent tours and 35k for 2 is about the sweet spot I'd say. Also happy to assist with UMFL, but waiting for signups numbers and UMPL to sorta get started would be good.
Think everything in a fairy's post looks good. One thing I will say as someone who hosts a lot of tours is that expanding minimum subs (especially if it comes with an auction funds increase) very disproportionately results in 3k armies. I've seen it happen in a lot of the tours I've hosted this year, again where slots expanding also added an extra sub and 10k per player increase to funds.
I think this is just bad for auction health. People can sit on massive reserves of cash and buy like 10 3ks at the end of the auction. Generally I strongly prefer a lower auction fund pool with a lower sub requirement (I've found 2-3 subs to be the sweet spot in other pls, but 4 is the upper bound of acceptable imo, and probably more acceptable in a tour like UMPL). If, like OMs, the idea is more minimum subs without a change to auction funds it should be fine, but I also question doing that at all personally; managers will simply save some extra funds for subs 9/10 times if they want the extra players, or they'll be incentivized to bid for bigger players, both of which are healthy for auctions.
Otherwise I have no real opinion on this stuff (I hate 3 managers in non-officials but I'll live). Big fan of putting player signups and just seeing the support for the slot expansion. Selfbuy at 17.5k or 15+20 both seem fine, I've done both in recent tours and 35k for 2 is about the sweet spot I'd say. Also happy to assist with UMFL, but waiting for signups numbers and UMPL to sorta get started would be good.
Last edited: