Randbats being in rbypl is a joke. I know ill get hate from this and cope from people who like it but it really isn't a competitive format regardless of how much people like to say it is. And now we are pushing for 2 slots? It's kind of insane to me.
There's no way that randbats is less competitive than your average low tier. I think they'll be getting there at some point, PU for example looks a lot better than last year, but they are still speed tie and crit fests. Especially since you can increase the game count for rands so easily (bo5 is the minimum and idt there's much pushback against bo7).
Ya rands playerbase gaps lowtier playerbase by a considerable amount, AND even if you think the baseline format has more rng than the lowtiers (very very arguable) they're happy to play best of ~25million to lessen that effect, while apparently Bo5 is too much for lowtier mains.
I also agree with removing random battles, but I prefer to see it replaced with ZU. RBYPL is the only tierpl or genpl that includes random battles and it does not fit in with the viability ranking based tiering of the other tiers. It feels like the odd one out and makes RBYPL look like the odd one out compared to other genpls.
I would like to echo the counter points of Virae and Amaranth here in regard to Rands being 'less competitive' than tiers. That opinion is as ignorant as it is disrespectful. I will add that RBY randbats is the ONLY generations randbats that was specifically adapted to maximise competitiveness. Other gen rands levelling became based on win rates, which led to a worse balance in RBY, given the gulf in quality of movesets coverage and typing between say a Starmie and a Muk, so it was naturally unbalanced gen to begin with. Early last year a group of a dozen or so veterans and accomplished players within the format created a group, working closely with random battles room staff members and coders to redress the balance. We tapped into years worth of experience to manually amend all 146 pokemons movesets and levels to ensure a balance as close to perfection as possible, and in the 16 months since the levelling has not been changed once to my knowledge. It also has a direct pipeline to rands staff in regard to any possible moveset change suggestions and implementation. This in effect was the 'tiering' of rands. RBY Rands is also the only gen that has its very own competitive circuit, something it has had for 5 years now. It is a staple of Rands World Cup & RBTT (the rands SPL).
There have been several distinguished players of other LTs and even OU who have competed in the rands circuit and if they thought it was going to be an easy ride then they were brought back down to Earth extremely quickly. The quality and depth is incredibly strong right from round 1, and if you want a success story for rands being part of PL then look no further than Vitoran, who is a rands player who joint topped the PU pool last year. I have played every single tier in this tournament extensively, and rands is on par with OU in terms of competitiveness. Anyone with access to historical rands circuit results could show you as much if you want further evidence (the same 4 players won all 13 tournaments held from January 2023-May 2024 for example)
'Other gens don't do it' -> Sabelette said it perfectly. Just because other gens do not doesn't mean we shouldn't. It's easier being a conformist than a trailblazer. And I already pointed out the several differences between RBY rands and other gens rands anyways. It is distinctly unique in both history, formation and continual administration.
TOUR LENGTH
I am surprised people are now strongly leaning towards 8 teams. Already said my reservations on 'will we even get 8 managerial pairs?'; something that failed to happen last year).
Do you guys have short memories or something? I clearly remember the majority of the manager cord last year discussing the issues with Belgian format and the main one was tournament length. Last years tour took 10 weeks after a tiebreak week concluded phase 1. With 8 teams the tournaments max length remains 11 weeks which is absurd. It's easy to say from this side of the tournament 'let's do it, it'll be fine' but reality of the grind sets in after 6 weeks into a tour that still has a month left. Managerial duties are not just limited to scouting, but playtesting, building, establishing and maintaining morale, reviewing games, being present for every series in case of act and sub calls. All this time adds up significantly.
If we go for the 8 teams route I'd like to propose allowance to add a third manager. It is what happens in SPL. And yes ppl can point out that SPL and other crossgen tours of similar length are more prestigious but every gen bar RBY in SPL has just one team that needs to be built and tested.
RBY last year had 35 maximum games worth of building per week. 4 Best of 5s (OU, UU, NU, PU) and 5 best of 3s (OU2-OU5 and Ubers).
People who have managed previously under the Belgian formats opinion should be weighted here imo. Experience is key.
I have no intention of managing again in this tournament beyond 7 weeks, which is the optimal length imo. So in this hypothetical there is one manager down out of 12 from last year already. Finding 16 is possible, but far from a guarantee.
I still think 6x10 was ideal (replace OU5 with ZU). If the question boils down to 6x12 vs 8x10 though then I vote 6x12. Add ZU and either another OU Bo3 or rands.
