• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

  • Option 1 is the best. CL keeping the SS-ADV from OGPL while adding 2 SV, ND is nice. Also UU rep w/o infringing on SV nice
  • Option 2 and 5 both are more OG centric and only have 1 SV. The difference is that Option 2 is 8x8 (if its 6x8 then I think has no benefit over any other Option) and Option 5 is 6x10 (SV should def be over UU if this is chosen). For me if keeping the spirit of OGPL is a priority, Option 5 is vastly superior. Not only does it use 6x10 to keep the 6 teams that separates OGPL/CL from PL, but that allows for SS/SM to get further spotlight that Option 2 simply does not give. The only benefits of Option 2 compared to Option 5 is that it makes the tour longer by 2 weeks and makes playoffs better (playoffs for 6 teams is not the easiest to figure out, 2 makes for a really hard reg season, 3 has the bye issue, 4 makes the reg season pretty easy)
  • Option 3 and Option 4 incorporate flex slots that we saw get some spotlight in OGPL3. Option 3 puts a major spotlight on them, Option 4 treats them similarly to how OGPL3 did by having teams only have 1 flex slot. Option 3 is good for if we want to have flex slots be the identity of CL (which i don't, so its my least favorite option), Option 4 is a bit of a midground between Option 1 and 3, which is more preferable but feels worse then either just going Option 1 and maximizing tier amount or Option 5 and keeping the spirit of OGPL while incorporating SV and ND.

Conclusion: Option 1 > Option 5 (SV over UU) > Option 4 > Option 2 (8x8) > Option 3. Also keep playoffs at 3 teams if 6 teams. If bye week needs to be eliminated then making playoffs harder to get is better then making it easier to get.
 
option 1 is the best, there’s like no negatives and all the others are trying too hard. 8x8 is not great with some oldgens, 8 flex has too many complications, option 4 is just worse 1, and 2 ss + 2 sm is not happening
 
2x SV is pretty ridiculous given survey results, giving a tier less popular than ADV for a slot, 2x the rep of other slots, feels like pure propaganda. That's really not what the surveyers voted for rly lol. WC had 4 sv slots for rep, why focus on repping it in cl?

i think we should go sv-adv + nd + uu for 9 slots and have a 10th slot that feels very champ like. classic has been hype and a lot of new people have basically built 3 tiers over a week for the same, think doing so in a smaller tour can be fun and not very burning out

10th tier: Classic Bo3 - SV-ADV options for gens to play a Bo5 in
Players BANx2 -> PICKx2 -> BANX2 -> remaining is autopicked for a total of 3 tiers from 7

Might be a hard tier to experiment with but keeps some of the flex component that's missing from last year. Could be a good idea overall.


edit: same idea with ss-dpp just like regular classic works fine by me IMO 5 most popular tiers by survey. would be more fitting and pick first is way better than ban first.
 
Last edited:
LittEleven said:
2x SV is pretty ridiculous given survey results, giving a tier less popular than ADV for a slot, 2x the rep of other slots, feels like pure propaganda. That's really not what the surveyers voted for rly lol. WC had 4 sv slots for rep, why focus on repping it in cl?

i think we should go sv-adv + nd + uu for 9 slots and have a 10th slot that feels very champ like. classic has been hype and a lot of new people have basically built 3 tiers over a week for the same, think doing so in a smaller tour can be fun and not very burning out

10th tier: Classic Bo3 - SV-ADV options for gens to play a Bo5 in
Players BANx2 -> PICKx2 -> BANX2 -> remaining is autopicked for a total of 3 tiers from 7

Might be a hard tier to experiment with but keeps some of the flex component that's missing from last year. Could be a good idea overall.


edit: same idea with ss-dpp just like regular classic works fine by me IMO 5 most popular tiers by survey. would be more fitting and pick first is way better than ban first.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good idea.

I agree 2 SV is pretty undesirable. I didn't include pure multigen in the poll because it didn't work that well from the previous incarnations, but a Bo3o5 traditional classic format might be more desirable.

There's no inherent seeding in a team tour format until later, but regardless picks and strikes would probably have to be at the roster submission level. So how it would work is when you submit your roster, you'd also submit a pick, a strike, and a backup strike for if your first strike was picked by your opponent. Then the last tier is either the final of SS - DPP OR if you and your opponent picked the same tier, a flip between the two remaining tiers.
 
I support bo3o5 completely, it should satisfy everyone
makes 6x10 possible which is what most people want, no flex which was most popular option
bo3, sv, ss, sm, oras, bw, dpp, adv, nd, uu
all the formats that did well enough in polls with equal representation
also gives spotlight to people who are good at multiple gens, finally
I think as long as you have 6 people willing to play it, which shouldn't be difficult, then it really has no downsides
 
Ok so first a word on 1v1CL

From the discussion we've had in this thread and on discord I think we should be moving forward with this as the format

6x10 - SV/Classic bo3o5/SS/SM/ORAS/BW/DPP/ADV/ND/UU

Here is my thought process.

1. No flex. Flex imo needs to be either all or none. Limited Flex was both the least popular format and doesn't really provide enough meaningful strategy decisions.

2. Limited SV helps focus the tour on our wide range of competitive formats beyond just the current gen. However SV's inclusion does prevent any drought of inclusion from team tours and can serve to involve SV players in the tour who might otherwise not be drafted.

3. 6x10 helps minimize any drought in a playerbase for certain tiers and allows for an inclusion of more formats.

4. ND and UU have been dying for representation, with UU especially always being a background thought, and Natdex while being a relatively recent addition, is undoubtedly super popular.

However, I do have concerns. UU is still a relatively underexplored tier, and Classic format is another version of multigen that historically hasn't really worked well. Despite these concerns, I still think this is for the best as with all of these changes this tour can undoubtedly be a really exciting and competitive tour.

As for everything else in this tour:

I will be reaching out to each council leader so that they and their playerbases can decide if they want to move forward with bo7 or bo5 as their format.

Manager buys should just be kept simple. Over complicating it just isn't worth it. 15/35 for 1/Both managers is fine.

In the interest of respecting all players time, Classic Series should have a shorter between-match timer. I'd recommend 5 minutes max only for Classic Series, but I could be convinced to shorten to 3 minutes. (We are talking about a minimum of 9 games here).

As with 1v1WC, all matches must take place on STours. The replay glitch remains unresolved, and plus Stours is cool.

If there is anything I'm missing please lmk.
 
CIRCUIT

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Ok, so after reviewing the poll results, and talking with some UM moderators, I'm excited to announce the following changes for the 2026 1v1 Circuit.

The UM Circuit will include Global Cup in lieu of a standard seasonal. After seeing, how cool global cup was, UMs have added it to their circuit. This will be a shared tournament between UMs and 1v1. To accommodate for UMs schedule, this tour will also be moved down in the calendar. This is very exciting for us, as our biggest tour will now have an even larger audience.

TLT has been removed from the calendar. A Double Elimination 1v1 Seasonal has been added and a hybrid elimination tour has been added. TLT was a cool format, but with the limitations on PS!, it proved to be kinda hard to do. With it being removed, we can instead run more traditional tours. The Double Elimination tour will come back in the form of a seasonal, as LCQ is holding on to the last tour of the year, while Hybrid Elimination tour will come in as a new tour.

Tours will be split between Type A/Type B tours. With 5 tours now on the schedule, we can more easily weight our tours separately, meaning Global Cup, 1v1 Seasonal, and 1v1 Ladder tour will all be TYPE A tours with a maximum point prize of 500 points. Hybrid Elim and LCQ will be TYPE B tours with a maximum point prize of 333 points
All top cut formats including Champs and Ladder Tour will be bo7.

For the full calendar click the link below: details subject to change

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cfNQp9YGd_0okRugRHsTg8R8JLTXWmxCuy8fUTlPMC0/edit?usp=sharing
 
agree with all lh said
one last thought I wanna give is that I dont like 15/35 manager pricing
I feel like this incentivizes all teams to only buy one manager which historically is the most broken thing to do because u buy the stronger player to have him for free pre draft and the other one is a guaranteed prep slot.

20/35 makes far more sense, incentivizes buying both managers which is good because we want as many competent players as possible to be playing, or none which is balanced because it makes draft a ton more difficult.
 
Regarding the mid series timer I think we should decrease the time for all series to 5 minutes even outside of bo3o5 slot in cl going forward. I think 7 is excessive when you are already not usually having instant challenges post game, and I’ve had my own time be wasted/had to play a hour and a half bo7 series in pl (that didn’t even go to 7 games btw). It’s pretty reasonable imo and I think would be a net positive to have for the tier
 
i agree with lost heros on the tiers and 6x10. im not sure who the uu playerbase is and who really cares that it's in the tour, but it's fine. i would also advocate for a 3 minute timer between games for the classic bo3o5. let's not play for 2+ hours. and i would also agree to shortening the timer between games to 5 minutes for All series.

manager pricing has been an issue for like 7 years. i agree simple would be best, but 15/35 or 20/35 is just a buff to one manager buying themself, or can result in 0 managers buying themself in the case of 20k for one. I think we do want to incentivize managers to be able to play just because it's kind of necessary with 1v1's manager / player pool. but the prices for the buys must be reasonable Enough, which no manager getting away with a super cheap price, and none being truly impossible to buy because of their price being too steep.

what i will propose instead is the following, which is certainly more complicated than flat pricing. it involves voting, which is subjective and i dislike, but i think could be worth trying.

in CL there will be 6 manager pairs and 12 managers. each manager pair votes on the other 10 managers, and ranks them into 4 tiers.
Tier 1: 24k
Tier 2: 20k
Tier 3: 16k
Tier 4: 12k

Managers can only place up to 3 other managers in each tier, e.g., 3 managers in T1, 3 in T2, 3 in T3, 1 in T4. The median vote is taken for each manager and is their price (idt average works because there are only 5 votes).

As an example, using the OGPL 1 Managers, I could reasonably vote like this, from the perspective of the WOOLOO WARRIORS:
Tier 1 (24k): Lumi
Tier 2 (20k): Kaif, Waylaid, J*mez
Tier 3 (16k): Elo Bandit, Urfgurgle, Mubs
Tier 4: (12k): Nick, DezShizzels, Jabiru

I think it would take quite a bit of collusion for people to end up more than 1 tier above or below what is "fair" for them due to it being a median. there would need to be 3+ manager pairs in on everything, which is not impossible, but still. you could rely on other teams putting Lumi in Tier 1 and vote her in Tier 4, but if other pairs do the same thing, Lumi gets to self buy for 10k. Womp womp.

for those who are less familiar with math, if there is a vote spread like t1, t2, t2, t3, t3, we take the median as written, so this player would end in t2. i think it could also be possible to do average with assigning points to tiers, e.g., T1 = 4.0, T2 = 3.0, T3 = 2.0, T4 = 1.0, drop the highest and lowest vote for each manager, then do the average of the votes and if a player reaches a certain threshold they are in that tier. this would need some math to determine if this is better than median, and i am someone less familiar with math!

other prices for the tiers are possible but idk it's pretty arbitrary (e.g., 25k, 20k, 15k, 10k). I chose this spread of prices because i think 25k is too high and 10k is too cheap and since i think people won't end up more than 1 tier above/below where they should be, a 4k difference is chill. the prices could theoretically be more expensive because i don't know how many credits there are in a 6x10 auction lol

i think it would also be reasonable to change how the assortment of players into tiers are, e.g., lock it to 2 in T1, 3 in T2, 3 in T3, and 2 in T4, so you have to put a minimum of 2 players in each tier? i think it could also be arguable to not set a limit for how many managers in each tier, but then why would i not just send everyone to 25k? that didn't happen when voting was a thing because there was a total price we could not exceed, but here it is not a thing.

ftr i think this would work better in PL since there are 8 teams there so more votes. lets do 8x10 CL! jk. but anyway lmk thoughts since i'm sure there are loopholes I haven't considered since I came up with this over the course of the last 60 minutes, so this will need some fine tuning
 
alright, let's wrap some things up.


CL manager signups go up Monday. After discussing a lot of stuff mostly on discord, here is what we're going to do.

1. Slots: MGBo3o5 (SV-ADV) / SV7 / SS7 / SM7 / ORAS5 / BW5 / DPP5 / ADV5 / ND7 / UU5.
All of those slots were initially requested by their respective councils and tier leaders, besides DPP who wanted to go DPP7 initially. However, after talking to a large amount of people there does not seem to be a lot of widespread playerbase support for DPP7. MGBo3o5 will include 7 metagames, of which players will first alternate picking 2, then striking 4 of them. Prior to playoffs, who picks first and who bans first will be random.

2. Manager Pricing: It's clear that static pricing is undesirable. We'll be looking to keep this relatively straightforward. Managers and Hosts will be asked to price each other. They will have a total budget and min and max prices for individual managers extreme values will be removed and then averages will be taken. Exact numbers will be discussed more but expect a system where the minimum manager is approximately 10k, the max manager ~22-25k, and the average is ~ 13-15k.

3. Timer: For ALL series, timer will be set to 5 minutes in between games. That means once a challenge is sent, the person will have 5 minutes to respond to it.

4. Smogtours: Stours will be REQUIRED for all games.
 
flexslots.png
 
some suggestions re: auction
- ban fake bids (punishable by infract etc); IDK how there is leeway given towards allowing trolling the auction / shoving eye candy in other people's faces.
- do not implement an auto bid timer, people should not be allowed to functionally skip their turn to wait out the draft: skipping people is an advantage for them and their budget. if you want the auction to go fast pls punish the slow people in some other form instead of rewarding them
- delete/discourage .overpay, it's meaningless and only hurts ppl on the receiving end (both managers / player being bid on). auction culture should not be built upon shaming people for being worse than their pricetag (especially hurts for a new player to hear these comments; if people want to type it out like whatever but its use as a meme command does more harm than good)
- make newer managers actually sit through a mock and attempt to draft; hold like official mocks and coordinate with those managers once they've been decided to do so. i would
- https://github.com/aculich/when2meet-extractor is a major boon to help finalise times, please use it
 
DEG said:
just make oras and bw bo7. Bo5 is dumb
Click to expand...

Ok but really why is bw bo5, the votes were split. Who did we ask and how was decision taken LittEleven. The votes on survey was 50/50

It's funny how the gens that are more prone to external factors (luck) are bo5 and recent gens w the luck factor adjusted are bo7. DPP/BW/ORAS have,

Boosted crit rate (all)
Boosted crit DMG (DPP, bw)
Less accurate moves than recent gens (DPP, bw)
 
If you read up, Lost Heros said the council would be consulted on the bo7/bo5 matter. BW has 4 council members and 3 were in favor of bo5, 1 abstained

The math suggest it makes no difference in series outcomes while unnecessarily straining builders or encouraging recycling, neither of which come with much upside if any
 
neomon said:
If you read up, Lost Heros said the council would be consulted on the bo7/bo5 matter. BW has 4 council members and 3 were in favor of bo5, 1 abstained

The math suggest it makes no difference in series outcomes while unnecessarily straining builders or encouraging recycling, neither of which come with much upside if any
Click to expand...

How does math suggest that when it literally does
 
i ran some monte carlo simulations wrt how hax would affect the result of a series: this is true for a series where hax is not present at all. old screenshot hype

1768184329154.png


it is obvious that the haxed game matters more in a best of 5, while the best of 7 allows for more net games to be haxed. assume two players have a average skill level difference that their true ratio of winning over a long series of games is fixed. i simmed with an average hax factor of 2.5%

1768183919886.png


these are the percent of games where hax truly reverses the result of the series. at 50% winrate hax can affect both players equally, so there would be no difference between a bo5 and bo7. in general, with more equal players, for a lawful result, you would want to play a bo5 here to make sure hax didnt reverse the series MORE than you would want to play a bo7 because you introduce more possible games where hax can manifest.
this is, of course, not factoring the ability that extending two games provides to a better player to close it out.

1768184096031.png


when you factor this into the first table above, you see that on average, if you play a 1000 games with skill levels varying enough; you have about 20 games where you would WANT to have played a bo7 over a bo5 to establish your competitiveness, aka a 2% change.

this is all to say: bo7 vs bo5 is a matter of convenience. is the improved competitiveness worth many external factors?
a) interest: do people want to build 7 teams a week?
b) workload: do you worry about burnout?
c) newcomer friendliness: do you think new players will approach the tier?

this is different for every tier; and its their choice whether you want to promote being sustainable over having more games to sample the metagame better.

re: survey for bw, the results being at 50/50 had a council opinion of 3:0 so we decided to go with the former. in this tour we actively want new blood to be comfortable with the tier due to the non participation of some of our standard players; and being a bo7 format makes that a bit hard even if it does appeal to some portion of the playerbase; if I wanted my BW player from OGPL3 (dusk) to start the tier I would like to make sure he would be comfortable with the teams he would build on his own, and forcing a otherwise uninvested player to start building a ton in a 10 slot tour feels wrong to me -- additionally, we have the classic slot taking up a volume of decent bw players which does make you want to advertise the tier to newer players who can pick it up within a tour: if you have one major bw builder and bo7 + classic slot having to play bw you are basically employed for the week; bo5 slightly mitigates that.

tldr:
- bo7 increases competitiveness. it improves it for individual series
- with that in mind, bo5 offers a more welcoming environment for newer players + offers less workload to a team
- tiers should pick their own tradeoff based on what they value.
- bo5 is what the council decided was better for this tour, since the survey didn't move the needle on its own.
- competitive games like tiebreak should be bo7, and that has been decided.

the format will likely not be changed within the context of this tour: this is just a verbal justification of our decision.
 
LittEleven said:
i ran some monte carlo simulations wrt how hax would affect the result of a series: this is true for a series where hax is not present at all. old screenshot hype

View attachment 800071

it is obvious that the haxed game matters more in a best of 5, while the best of 7 allows for more net games to be haxed. assume two players have a average skill level difference that their true ratio of winning over a long series of games is fixed. i simmed with an average hax factor of 2.5%

View attachment 800068

these are the percent of games where hax truly reverses the result of the series. at 50% winrate hax can affect both players equally, so there would be no difference between a bo5 and bo7. in general, with more equal players, for a lawful result, you would want to play a bo5 here to make sure hax didnt reverse the series MORE than you would want to play a bo7 because you introduce more possible games where hax can manifest.
this is, of course, not factoring the ability that extending two games provides to a better player to close it out.

View attachment 800069

when you factor this into the first table above, you see that on average, if you play a 1000 games with skill levels varying enough; you have about 20 games where you would WANT to have played a bo7 over a bo5 to establish your competitiveness, aka a 2% change.

this is all to say: bo7 vs bo5 is a matter of convenience. is the improved competitiveness worth many external factors?
a) interest: do people want to build 7 teams a week?
b) workload: do you worry about burnout?
c) newcomer friendliness: do you think new players will approach the tier?

this is different for every tier; and its their choice whether you want to promote being sustainable over having more games to sample the metagame better.

re: survey for bw, the results being at 50/50 had a council opinion of 3:0 so we decided to go with the former. in this tour we actively want new blood to be comfortable with the tier due to the non participation of some of our standard players; and being a bo7 format makes that a bit hard even if it does appeal to some portion of the playerbase; if I wanted my BW player from OGPL3 (dusk) to start the tier I would like to make sure he would be comfortable with the teams he would build on his own, and forcing a otherwise uninvested player to start building a ton in a 10 slot tour feels wrong to me -- additionally, we have the classic slot taking up a volume of decent bw players which does make you want to advertise the tier to newer players who can pick it up within a tour: if you have one major bw builder and bo7 + classic slot having to play bw you are basically employed for the week; bo5 slightly mitigates that.

tldr:
- bo7 increases competitiveness. it improves it for individual series
- with that in mind, bo5 offers a more welcoming environment for newer players + offers less workload to a team
- tiers should pick their own tradeoff based on what they value.
- bo5 is what the council decided was better for this tour, since the survey didn't move the needle on its own.
- competitive games like tiebreak should be bo7, and that has been decided.

the format will likely not be changed within the context of this tour: this is just a verbal justification of our decision.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense but discussing is useless now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top