RBTT RBTT IX: Format Discussion Thread

[MichaelderBeste2]

First of all, thank you for putting out this thread, I'm glad that feedback will be (hopefully) taken into account
Secondly, I apologize for the longest post in this thread probably but heck, I want everyone to enjoy the tournament.

Team Tournament
- 10 teams is fine if you don't increase the number of starters. I am in favour of 8 teams though cause that actually makes it more competitive imo
- I think 2 managers are enough honestly. The reason to increase it to avoid act calls is invalid if you allow players to sub themselves in which I'm positive is going to be implemented
- I think having set teams which do not change every year is 100% needed. It allows the CA artists to have more time to work on those (in future editions), allows for retains and guarantees that managers cannot choose a CA on their own benefit cause they did not really earn the right to decide their CAs every year tbh
- Team size: As I mentioned earlier, you should either have 8x22 or 10x18. I think around 170 players is the best bet and having more than 22 slots just makes it super chaotic. Since I'm favouring auction, you should not have a set number of players though and instead I insist on 17-20 (if 14 starters) or 20-22 (if 16 starters)
- Bench involvement I always made a rule for myself as a manager which is that every slot has to play at least once. If you make it 9 regular weeks cause of 10 teams, you can let every slot play twice at least. Making it a rule would enforce another depth in strategy to when you field whom.

Tournament Organization
- Commencement threads usually die off after the first two weeks which is a little sad to see. Maybe a predictions contest can help (similar to SCL) or a bingo with the winner getting some kind of reward (Room Winner or so idk). Keep the spectators encouraged and use it as an opportunity to maybe also advertise the other tours like Rands Slam or other team tournaments
- Spreadsheet: I think the spreadsheets were always great. As for data missing, there is nothing I can think off.
- I said it multiple years now, please make RBTT an auction based tournament. I think auction tournaments are great cause it requires another skill needed from managers. I think, no matter what you do in a Snake Draft, every team will end up on a similar strength cause it is really hard to mess up there. It also allows for way cooler upsets and it can maybe help players in the prediction contest if they never heard of their name to look at their price tag to get a feeling for who to favour. Also, without an auction, retains cannot be implemented I'm afraid of. The main reason keeping it snake has always been: "We have been doing it for years now." I think it needs a change. Every single other Rands tour (CCCCC for example) is already snake, so please give me this one x)
- Manager Buyins should be limited to 1. I also agree with what most people said. If you keep it Snake Draft (please don't), the decision should be made way before Round 5. It should also be made before Round 3 imo. Make it round 1/2 max so that it also actually provides some room to think about. Before, it was a no brainer to pick the manager in Round 5, so I encourage a change here. If you make it an auction, it depends on the slots as well as the budget. I think 10-15% of the budget is not a bad choice generally (15k-20k with a 150k budget)
- Players should always be allowed to sub themselves in. Can get dangerous if one decides to troll and make a sub which is not needed but then they just get punished for that. Even if you have 3 managers per team, you cannot cover every timezone, especially because you're not always online even if a game fits your timezone. I think, it should definitely be added.

Format Discussion
- First of all, I have to say this because I feel like the RBY players are either trolling or have not really played RBY before. Complaining about matchups and hax seems very RBY but I played over 3000 RBY randbats and let me tell you this straight. Games tend to go longer than most people say here. In my experience, the fastest games happen in 3-5 and 7. This is not a valid argument. And regarding the matchups, GSC is also way worse than RBY. The arguments for making RBY Bo5 (and the rest not potentially) is flawed and should not be taken into consideration.
- Bo5 should generally not be the common format, it should stay Bo3. I'll say later which formats should be made Bo5 but it should definitely not be the norm. Most players do not use the timer cause "it's Randbats". This argument makes me so angry cause the use of timer is a skill that people should/could use. A good Bo3 set is supposed to last 45 minutes to an hour. Making slots Bo5 is incredibly draining. Sitting 2 hours to play a set is bad for viewers and players altogether. For the viewers, the attention span has to be kept which is not happening with Bo5 sets in most formats.
- I highly encourage changing Tiebreaks to 5 slots. This was a great suggestion and I have nothing to add what has not been said yet.
- I think the Mystery Box is fun, encouraging my rule of everybody playing at least once/twice and getting rid of it completely is something I do not support. You can put in the formats that see not a ton of play but get featured in the Minior Circuit for example.
- Getting a 2nd doubles slot is something I do not support however. It is already tough to find 8 starting players and increasing this to 16 is heinous. I'd rather see a slot for Blitz, Random Roulette or a Bo3 (of Gen 7, 8, 9).
- I feel like the people that call Battle Factory or Hackmons Cup have never actively tried it. Getting rid of BSS Factory is also something I hard disagree with. All these formats have their players and are more skillful than almost all generations of Randbats. How do we keep the formats without overloading it with the rest? I'll show you how in a bit. Also, Hackmons Cup is part of the Rands Slam as well, so please don't ditch it.

Conclusion
- I think it got pretty clear on what I want added/removed
- This is the optimal format (in my eyes):

Main:
Gen 9 Bo5
Gen 9 Bo3
Gen 8 Bo3
Gen 7 Bo3
Gen 6 Bo3
Gen 5 Bo3
Gen 4 Bo3
Gen 3 Bo3
Gen 2 Bo3
Gen 1 Bo3
Doubles Bo3
BSS Factory Bo5
Battle Factory Bo3
Hackmons Cup Bo3
Random Roulette Bo3
Mondern Trio (Gen 9, Gen 8, Gen 7)

Mystery Box:
Monotype Random Battle Bo3
SSBU Bo3
BringPick Shared Power Bo3
Mayhem Bo3
Baby Bo3
Broken Cup Bo3
CAP Bo3

-> 7 formats which is perfect for 7 weeks in Regular Season. In Playoffs 3 formats will be randomized before the start of the round and it will be played in a Bo3 (one game per format).

- Auction with 19-22 players per team (16 starters), everybody has to play at least twice. 8 teams with 4 of them making playoffs which means 9-11 weeks tournament which is a great time window. Also perfect because if the tour starts last week of December/first week of January, it ends end of March which is great cause Champions most likely comes out on Pokémon Day so the tour should not last one month longer than that. This is another reason why 8 teams is better than 10 btw :]


This was a lot and since I wrote all of this in one take, my grammar or word choice might not be perfect. That being said, I'm really looking forward to see what is going to happen to this tournament and I'm also happy to discuss the choices I made.

 

[Celever]

why we should add a 2nd randdubs slot in rbtt: a thinkpiece: an essay

1 - this format has a ton of players

• gen 9 doubles has the 2nd highest player count on all of ps, second only to gen 9 singles. we dont have accurate public data on the player counts of each tier, but as of writing this, the random doubles ladder is reaching around 2140. the next most popular rands tier, gen 6, is peaking 200 points lower and the next most popular tier in general, gen 9 ou, is peaking 100 points lower. for reference, 100 elo equates to around 1.5-2x the number of players
• random doubles as a tier is also growing and is likely to continue to - a year and a half ago, the usual peak on the ladder was over 100 elo lower.

2 - and a ton of interest, especially in tour

• of the 6 spotlights voted in this year, 2 of them were random doubles-based formats.
• ive also seen people concerned that there just arent enough good doubles players to fill 16 slots. here's a list of 24 very good players who signed up for doubles last rbtt, excluding ALL new doubles players (especially anybody new coming from vgc) and anybody i inducted into the format (a few rbel and wcor players)

THE LIST

ionnss
marcofiero
odr
FreyaknightVGC
soTsoT
snorlax142857
Karthik
Idyll
HaunterBoy28
Sapphire
Arcticblast
zoe
eragon
Ann
teres bahji
Shiritu

jackofspadesman
Hugo
Schister
LogIce
daawesomedude
srvoltmike
staraptor
Optidox

i didnt think too hard about the ordering, please dont get mad at me

edit:
icy told me i could add him to the list!!!
edit2:
the list grows still

IcyPenguin2
AIRedzone
PigWarrior19

3 - but has next to no tour representation - rbtt randdubs specifically is one of the hardest slots to get into on ps

• the product of this is that for new players, there's only a single consistent tournament every year that you can play in to prove yourself (the rands circuit open tour). if you arent an active ladderer and end up getting unlucky in the open, theres literally nothing you can do to advance beyond that point
• likewise for rbel players whose country in wcor already has a doubles player - theres not much you can do, no result you can get, to advance from rbel

i think the best argument for a second random doubles slot is to point who would currently be skipped for rbtt as it stands, no matter what results they managed to get

• sirsquishi was the mvp of rbel in random doubles but is unlikely to get picked
• sapphire went 7-1 in wcor and won the whole thing, but might not get picked
• shiritu went 5-0 in wcor playing doubles, but would most likely be skipped. there isnt a single other instance of a 5-0 wcor player not being picked for rbtt if they signed up, but its likely he wont be
• optidox won rbel with a 5-2 reg season AND made top 8 of the open, but is likely to be skipped

in terms of implementing it;
i think, to differentiate it from the other random doubles slot, the ideal form this would be is in a bo5 slot, but i can see the argument that it should be bo3 so as not be on the same level as regular gen 9 singles. let me know your thoughts

Yo GOAT you might be better than me at dubs but I could comfortably fill a secondary randdubs slots in RBTT I think; add me to the list king

Not gonna write an essay but will list things out. Support a second dubs slot (I didn't have this opinion before reading the thread I never even thought of it tbh) because playerbase is more than big enough and dubs is one of the highest skill expression formats rands has, so more games in the top tier format is a good thing.

I think Roulette and any other modded rands format will suck in RBTT unless the relevant browser extensions (tooltip mainly, but also kind of showdex which can struggle to work in some formats) are compatible with those formats at full functionality. A team member losing due to failing a knowledge check when every other format doesn't require knowledge checks anymore due to the extensions will just feelbadman, and creates the possibility of some unfortunate scenarios. Rands teamtours no longer having the setdev knowledge check intra-team drama is great -- thank you technology -- and reintroducing this component just leaves the backdoor open to some unfortunate toxicity. We've largely forgotten a lot of setgen rules because of the tooltip being used in most formats, so I think failing the knowledge checks will be more prolific if anything.

Which doesn't mean don't do the formats at all as a flat rule, it just means if you choose to go with them you need to work with tooltip developers and ensure compatibility with all non-factory RBTT formats. It will be worth it, and is a genuine risk factor and issue.

Make every format Bo5 unless the players drafted for the format vote to change it to Bo3 after draft. Bo5 should be the default, but for particularly stally gens (basically just gen 2, but an argument could be made for gen 3) a reasonable exception could be made if the playerbase wants it. Bo3 being the default is flatly the wrong choice, especially when many playerbases want Bo5 and aren't given the option besides "gentlemans" which are fake and also bring up risk factors for team cohesion and toxicity. Gentlemansing a Bo5 and then going 2-1 -> 2-3 makes people mad at the team member who did that, it happens every time. Putting the impetus on the player by making the "solution" gentlemansing and putting them in the risk situation is irresponsible, just organise the tour and make a decision one way or the other. But make the right choice. Bo5.

Finally, break weak between draft and the start of Week 1 where stuff like this happens. Give players the opportunity to have some input on the custom avatars during the week (detail things; artists obviously can't make all the cavis from scratch in a week); give players the chance to vote on if their format should be Bo3 or Bo5; and RBTT is more than big enough to have proper power rankings articles. Especially if we move to auction (which I also support, forgot bout that) because power rankings articles will have an extra component to talk about with regards to monetary value. And the new fantasy league stuff could do with the extra week too.

 

[TheBoyWithTheBugz]

Replace Hackmons with Random Roulette, Hackmons is way more luck-based than skill-based than other random formats and Roulette requires more all-around players with a lot of experience and vast knowledge of all the primary formats.

Also maybe some sort of events to make the commencement thread more lively. Manager interviews, prediction contests and maybe live commentary on the "main event" matches of some sort. Just something so the whole randbats community is involved in RBTT, and makes it a more vivacious event.

 

[rabbit13]

I don't have a strong opinion on hackmons personally, but I'm curious why you think this data suggests a competitive format.

To me, a competitive format and a competitive player pool are two separate factors exerting opposite pressures.

As a format gets increasingly competitive (i.e. outcome-determinative based on player skill), results should trend towards an ordered outcome (X-0, (X-1)-1...0-X) because even if differences between players are small, the format should be magnifying those differences in a consistent manner.

As a player pool gets increasingly competitive (i.e. the skill differences between players shrink), it should exert pressure towards 50% WRs as there exist fewer exploitable skill differences by which to order outcomes.

What this data (ignoring the small sample) would seem to me to suggest is a noncompetitive format with a highly competitive player base.

To be fair, don't forget my comment on my inherent bias, so cherry-picking data is all part of the process. I'm also here for a good time and HC has the best vibes, especially among its player base (also biased).

But yes, we have a highly competitive player base that plays at a very high level, which therefore makes the format competitive (totally unbiased )

 

[betathunder]

Monotype Random Battle Bo3
SSBU Bo3

As someone who’s played both of these formats in RBTT before their removal, I can say there is no worse feeling than losing a week (and potentially missing playoffs) due to unfair matchups in these formats.

Granted, ssb is likely way more balanced than its original inception, and the advent of the role system/tera may make gen9 mono rands more balanced than old gens; however, I think the inclusion of these tiers would be a step in the wrong direction.

I’m happy to be proven wrong by people who regularly play these formats, but given a lot of discussion thus far has focused on the removal of “luck-based” formats, I don’t think we should be trying to include more of them.

That being said not a racist i want a lamp I will win the run back so start training

 

[Lady Writer]

RBEL grinder, gen 1 shitposter here to add my thoughts

On bo5 for Gen1

Chains of Markov - You make an insightful observation on the effect of sample size on outcomes in scenarios with near 50% odds. I agree that increasing Gen1 rands from BO3 to BO5/7 would only slightly increase winrate of the better player; however, I posit that gen 1 rands does not only play BO7 to increase the winrate of the better player but also to increase the number of quality games.

A quality game of pokemon random battles, by my own definition, is one where (A) both players are given teams that allow skillful, meaningful interaction, such as predicting, bluffing, and setting up your win condition, and (B) in game hax such as accuracy, secondary effects and critical hits has impact both players near equally.

Due to the limited roster of generation 1, team dif feels more more severe than in other gens. With so few moves, pokemon compete for the same archetypes and often feel like worse versions of each other. This is exacerbated by the format's (rightfully beloved) inclusion of a lot of pre-evolutions. My Nidorino and your Nidoking are both trying to be four slot attackers with good coverage, why is yours so much more effective than mine. That does not feel fair. Furthermore, gen 1 has some really bad mons. Moments like finding value from your ditto or setting up a sweep with your beedrill are some of the best experiences in all of random battles, but I still would not want one on my team in an important match. It does not feel satisfying when I beat my opponent's Ditto, Goldeen and Machop with my Chansey, Zapdos, and Mewtwo. This does not even get into how many horrible individual 1v1 match ups there are in the gen such as most electrics vs grounds, farfetch'd vs ghosts and how they warp a match. I admit winrate is a pretty bad statistic to judge pokemon viability, especially with a format with as few matches as gen 1, but at time of writing there are 14/146 mons with sub 45% WR in gen 1 compared to 2/505 in gen 9. In generation 1, team dif feels more impactful than in other generations.

So many games in generation 1 random battles feel like they come down to body slam paralysis, sleep move accuracy, blizzard freezes, psychic special drops and other hax that does not rely on the skill of a player. Winning a game because I crit my opponents grass type sleep powder user with blizzard as they missed sleep doesn't feel satisfying. It feels cheap. Playing the odds is a tenet of random battles, moreso in generation 1 than any other, but I still want beat my opponent due to my other, more visceral, skills. Quantifying that RNG in gen 1 is more impactful than in other generations would be an interesting exercise that I must defer, but there are key mechanical differences that make rng feel worse in gen 1. Freeze being permanent unless your opponent melts feels so frustrating. Sleep lasting up to 7 turns with waking taking your action (meaning a faster pokemon can just sleep you again without your pokemon doing a move) makes it feel more uncompetitive in generation 1 than later iterations. Beyond pure mechanical difference, the format incentivizes hax reliant win conditions more than in other generations. Paralysis feels like it is more commonly used in gen 1, so more games come down to full paralysis turns. Again, some pokemon use sand attack and smokescreen, which can degenerate games into hax nightmares. Confuse ray also sees use. It feels like RNG ruins more games in gen 1 than in other generations.

So, if you (the reader, not just chains) agree with me so far, you are at least admitting that team dif and hax feel like they make more games low quality in generation 1 than in other generations, but that does not necessitate your support of gen 1 BO5 in RBTT. My useful strawman may say something like "RBTT is supposed to be the most competitive tournament, who cares about how the players feel." As much as I care about gen 1ers feelings, this critique warrants a more substantial reply. To this, I argue that we must consider what RBTT is for. It is not just an opportunity for the players to prove their skill or the teams to win a trophy, but it is the premier showcase of random battles. It should demonstrate all the skill and practice that goes into getting good at random battles. I think a player of any skill level or familiarity should be able to click on any RBTT match and be impressed and inspired by the quality of play. Sadly, due the nature of the format, gen 1 random battles are not as consistently high quality as other formats(gen 2 excluded, that is another, completely different conversation). Someone could watch one series consisting of two matches decided by freezes and sleep accuracy. They would feel that the format is haxy and unskilled. That is a tragedy. They will never learn about the niche mechanics and interactions like stat boosting moves halving the paralyzed opponent's speed again that make the format so cool and unique. If there was one more game in the series, maybe they would understand the appeal. One more game is one more opportunity to fall in love with the beauty of the format, why should that not be encouraged?

Obviously, I support BO5 for gen 1. Other Gen 1 enthusiasts can speak to chain's other valid concerns about scheduling difficulties and the endurance required to play an extended set.

What you feel is far from the reality of high quality gen 1 gameplay. I do agree that gen 1 being bo5 is better overall, this due to the potential of unplayable games due to luck that is not due to team gen. I think that most gen 1 rands players who have played in rbtt before would agree with me that if we just take matchups and leave behind luck in game, Gen 1 has the most balanced matchups out of any random battles generation. On top of this, plenty of luck is going to happen in Gen 1 games. Players know this. It’s all about odds management in gen 1. Does it feel satisfying to spam ice moves and hope for freezes? Maybe not, but everyone knows that it is generally a good idea in gen 1 and people should play accordingly. But in theory all formats would be better with more games played, I don’t think Gen 1 should be boxed into its own special category due to anything related to team gen.

 

[Inazuma-Fulgur]

Format Discussion
- First of all, I have to say this because I feel like the RBY players are either trolling or have not really played RBY before. Complaining about matchups and hax seems very RBY but I played over 3000 RBY randbats and let me tell you this straight. Games tend to go longer than most people say here. In my experience, the fastest games happen in 3-5 and 7. This is not a valid argument. And regarding the matchups, GSC is also way worse than RBY. The arguments for making RBY Bo5 (and the rest not potentially) is flawed and should not be taken into consideration.
.

3000 ladder games is a lot of games but your personal time concerns matter less than the vast majority of RBY concerns

Over the last 2 years I've played somewhere between 300 and 400 rby tournament games, most of them in bo7, and I think you couldn't be more wrong about bo3 not being uncompetitive. Most of them end 2-0

 

[Hacker]

Keep Battle Factory. If anything, expand the number of slots in the tour to BO16

I don't disagree with the sentiment that a lot of Battle Factory players don't venture out into other rands formats, but they are still a part of the randbats community. Across this website theres plenty of formats where its players don't branch out much at all but it doesn't stop them from being placed into tournaments. Theres plenty of people who show up to play Battle Factory every year and tons of players with a lot of history in RBTT like temp, etc.

I would also like to challenge this notion

I think BSSF and BF should both be removed from RBTT. Their Minior Circuit showings were pathetically low and it's become clear that they are not the popular cornerstones of our side formats that we thought they were.

It is undeniable that these had the least signups out of every tour involved in the rands tournament scene. However, is anything else expected when you take them out of the main circuit? I don't disagree with this decision either but I think you have to accept the fact that you never set them up for success by doing it.

Regardless I think another SV slot would be nice, and either RandDubs or Roulette would be nice to accomodate it. If BF is taken out please another SV slot. Only 2 is crazy

 

[ionnss]

I could comfortably fill a secondary randdubs slots in RBTT I think; add me to the list king

Not gonna write an essay but will list things out. Support a second dubs slot (I didn't have this opinion before reading the thread I never even thought of it tbh) because playerbase is more than big enough and dubs is one of the highest skill expression formats rands has, so more games in the top tier format is a good thing.

The List has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique the list end up reinforcing it instead.


for the record, i didnt mean the list as a ranking or suggestion for the top 16, just as a floor, a bare minimum, for the level of star power the slot has. you could still easily construct a top 16 without any inexperienced dou mainers or without any of the versatile rands players that could swap formats if they wanted, and i think itd still more than fill both slots competitively

the inverse of that is that just like last year, rbtt regs or people with results that would usually be more than good enough to fill the slot wont get drafted, just because the slot is *that* stacked

 

[thepokemonuploads]

Hello there, I believe there should be an another format for randdubs

There are a lot of players that are mainers in doubles formats, also we got a lot of singles formats already, so adding Gen 9 random doubles bo5 or gen 8 random doubles bo3 would be great

(And there is no need for BSS Factory)

 

[Fragments]

Don't axe other formats just to duplicate others. I understand the argument that certain formats have bigger playerbases than others, but just cause they're bigger doesn't mean those other formats have 0 people. It seems pretty silly to me to increase doubles representation by completely eliminating bf, bssf, or hc representation. And yes, people who enjoy these formats do exist. There were more than 8 viable starters for each of these formats last year. The only "viable" solution would be to add 2 extra slots, but I put viable in quotations as 16 slots per team is quite insane. That said, it's still better than getting rid of other formats just so you can have more of others, that just completely kills the spirit of rbtt which is representing randbats formats that have devoted communities behind them.

Only other thing I'll comment on is team names. RBTT has been behind the times for years now by not allowing completely original team names like literally every other tour on the site, the whole "Team [Pokemon]" thing is just very underwhelming. And why are we limited to only legendaries as mascots? At this point there have been so many iterations of rbtt that it's pretty much impossible not to repeat mascots, and having to repeat is just kinda lame. Just let managers come up with whatever name they want, people love creative team names and it really adds to the hype of the tour.

 

[Drifting]

I just wanna preface this by saying that I have nothing against doubles as a format. I think it's fun and a lot of my wins in circuit playoffs last year were in Doubles. The reason I'm posting is because a lot of doubles players are (understandably) flooding the thread to try and make an easier path into RBTT, and I feel like it may create the false appearance of consensus when a lot of rands players are in fact more apprehensive, they just don't have a reason to post against it.

I am not entirely convinced that adding another Doubles slot to RBTT is a good idea, for a few reasons.

1. The basis for removing a tier

I think, most people can agree that removing a format for a repeat is generally a bad look. This is because a doubles player already has an avenue into RBTT by improving and raising their prestige or whatever in the Doubles Open, WCOR, amazing RBEL runs, getting a 90+ GXE etc (and before you say Ladder doesn't matter, a GXE higher than 90 was the easiest way to get on my radar when I managed RBTT, so this is from experience). However, when you remove a format, it completely cuts the playerbase of that tier out of RBTT. No amount of improving at their format of choice will matter. All this is to say that a tier getting replaced by a repeat should have an extremely high bar.

HC does not meet that bar in my opinion. It has a ladder, a historical playerbase in previous editions of RBTT with names like NPM and platinumCheesecake coming to mind, its own mini-tournament scene, etc. It should 1000% be made Bo5 but the tier has enough of its own identity to not be replaced for a repeat format.

I am also unconvinced of the argument for replacing BF. There's a lot of BF hating in the thread and don't get me wrong it's not my favourite format either, but that's just because it's not really a format geared towards Randbats purists. With Team Preview and other stuff it plays much more like traditional tiers, and has traditionally been an entry point for high-skill, well-known players to get into RBTT which I think is a good thing for the tournament. I personally really enjoyed getting to play with and have the teamcord presence of guys like lax and CBB last year and I know my boy Hacker really enjoys the format as well, I think losing it would be a great loss.

The one format I do think can be removed is BSSF. It's sad because BSS does have it's own community but the reality is that a tier without a ladder probably should also be retired from what is supposed to be the definitive Randbats event. The tier has always kind of been an offshoot of regular Factory, and there is no real way to practice BSSF or get into it as a new player with the way things currently are. However, I do not believe that if BSSF is removed, Doubles should be the go-to replacement. Again, I'm not saying BSSF 100% should be removed but I think it's the only tier with a valid/strong argument and I personally would not be upset to see it go.

2. What tier should be put in

So if we do decide to remove a tier and cut its playerbase from the event, there are still some other options before Doubles. Frankly, having an equal amount of Doubles Slots and Gen 9 Rands slots (the main rands format) is a bit absurd, so to even consider it I think you would need another Gen 9 slot, AKA two formats removed for repeats which is undesirable. The other option is a new format like Roulette, which would be really cool and reward players with a lot of experience and a diverse rands skillset. If we are saying in my hypothetical that BSSF is removed, I would be in favour of adding either this or an additional Gen 9 Bo3 slot (I think the 9/8/7 Bo3 is a bit silly and arbitary). It's possible that good doubles players have been left out of RBTT (though as someone who had an undefeated RBEL run I think using positive records in it as evidence for high skill by RBTT standards is a little tenuous), but with only two slots of the by far biggest and again, the "default" rands format that is G9, we saw players like freezai go undrafted last year which is a bit silly. so a third slot for Gen 9 imo makes sense and would match the typical 3-4 Current Gen slots most teamtours have.

Even if you do remove two formats e.g. BSSF and BF, which again I do not think is a great idea, assuming a Gen 9 would be added you'd still need to debate Doubles versus Roulette and I personally think Roulette would be more interesting than a repeat with the caveat that Showdex ends up being functional for it, which admittedly idk what the process for that would be. Again though, that's assuming you cut two playerbases out of RBTT entirely which I really do not support. Again, not a slight on doubles, I just think it doesn't really warrant a second slot over the alternatives.

Oh also I think RBY should stay Bo3 probably. Bo5 would take forever and in my experience RBY doesn't feel that much more volatile or matchuppy than something like 2 or 4 to warrant special treatment.

 

[Kingslayer Caterpie]

I really would like to push for making the rby slot bo5. I'm almost certain the overwhelming majority of the rby playerbase prefers it (in rbypl the rands players actually voted to play bo7 instead of bo5), and it improves the tier by a lot.

Just due to the nature of the tier and gen you sometimes get unwinnable matchups or unsurmountable rng, bo3 just isn't enough to offset the variance (I'm not that good at any other gen, so I don't know if they have similar issues). In addition it really isn't a stally gen since recovery moves are so limited, so playing 5 games really doesn't take to long. The only real argument for bo3 is that people who don't enjoy the tier have to play it less (which I maybe can see for something like wcor, where sometimes non-mains are forced to play). But for RBTT there are more than enough dedicated rby players to make that a non-issue.

Again maybe this is true for most gens and bo5 should be the standard, but I'm not experienced enough in any of them to have strong opinions.

agree

 

[Shadows4]

Another option to increase both gen 9 representation and randdubs representation could be a new bo5 slot containing both gen 9 and gen 9 randdubs. !pick for the first one then alternate. Like a true “current gen mastery” bo5 format

Bssf should 100% be bo5

 

[hammy3581]

Prefacing this by saying that I agree with a good amount of your post, but there are some things that I think don't make sense.

and has traditionally been an entry point for high-skill, well-known players to get into RBTT which I think is a good thing for the tournament.

I'm a bit confused on how this is specific to battle factory though. Like rands is quite definitely the easiest format ever to pick up with zero barriers of entry and pretty active ladders. Very good tiers players such as GXE are able to slot into the most competitive slot in gen 9 bo5, and perform very well because they are good players and rands isn't rocket science. What's preventing any other well-known player from grinding any of the other 10 rands ladders for a couple weeks, learning the format, farming a good gxe and then doing something similar?

I personally really enjoyed getting to play with and have the teamcord presence of guys like lax and CBB last year

Not really sure how relevant this is, but you're still free to to do a nepo/vibes pick as a sub. And again, if someone is really good in one format they should at least be passable in another at a high level, based purely off of gamesense.

it completely cuts the playerbase of that tier out of RBTT

I agree with the idea that removing formats should be a high bar, lest we disclude a very passionate group for no reason, but lets look at this line. What is the "playerbase" behind bf? Hackmons had the hackmons cup premier league a couple months back, and bssf has bsscl going on right now, which will definitely showcase some good bssf talent by the time that signups go up/finish for rbtt. But there really isn't ANYTHING like that for battle factory, I haven't seen a single thing that shows a battle factory community exists outside of just rbtt. If a community doesn't really have that much enthusiasm for their tier unless its present in rbtt, is it really that big of a loss if its discluded?

but the reality is that a tier without a ladder probably should also be retired from what is supposed to be the definitive Randbats event. The tier has always kind of been an offshoot of regular Factory, and there is no real way to practice BSSF or get into it as a new player with the way things currently are.

I agree that not having a ladder is a pretty big knock against a format being included, but this fails to mention the fact that battle factory is in a similar boat. Like sure, it technically does have a ladder, but that ladder has the number one player at 1500, ie the elo decay floor. That's criminally low activity, even the most random of formats like metronome have at least a couple of people who care enough to maintain a +1500 elo. And I think saying that bssf has no way to practice or get into it as a new player while the same is true for bf is like calling someone poor for having $0.00 in their bank account when you have $0.03. Sure, $0.03 is infinitely more than zero, and a ladder is infinitely better than no ladder, but functionally they end up being the same. A ladder where you'll be waiting 20 minutes for games just so you can play a shitty game vs a below average player and not really even become better doesn't feel like that big of a difference compared to nothing.

All in all, I have no real love or ire towards hc/bssf/bf, I really couldn't care less if 1/2/3 formats were removed and which ones they were. I just think this post has some inaccuracies due to an understandable bias, which I think should be pointed out.

 

[El químico del pueblucho]

My suggestion is simple check more about players info more than players winnings, there's more talent u can miss only seeing spreadsheets.