Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
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.
If the general preference is to retain with the current system's 8 teams, then I'm happy to lean towards keeping it that way. RBTT should be pitting the best against the best, and if an extra two teams risks diluting that, then I think it's an unnecessary change.
As far as slots go, with the popularity of doubles, and the growing support of adding some other niche formats, I'm currently on the side of 16 slots. I see the arguments so far regarding cutting HC/BSSF if any formats were to be cut, but I think these formats are part of what makes RBTT different and so I think it's important to maintain these/rotate them. How do we feel about other niche formats, like VGC rands?
Franchises. If the main issue is straining artists with a time crunch, the proposed solutions of having managers signup earlier/extend the time between manager & player signups then I'm happy to avoid franchises altogether and make sure the calendar helps the artists out.
I think an auction is worth exploring. Thank you to those so far who have provided potential auction/pricing models so far. It's definitely a strange terrain for rands given there's no team building value, but I think it's definitely something worth seeing out and it then gives us very good information on how to proceed with RBTT XI when it comes to it.
Final comment, the RBTT server. Thoughts? Should we bring it back for RBTT X?
Thank you all for the feedback so far, I will aim to provide personal thought updates when possible to keep this as transparent as possible.
I'm not particularly good (read really bad) at articulating my thoughts well so :bewear: with me...
1. Number of Teams and Franchising:
This year between RBEL, WCoR and Circuit, we had some good showing from new names. However I don't think we have enough new quality players to form 2 whole new teams. Specially considering there might always be some drops from previous season and some might just not signup due to reasons. And if we try to squeeze in every potential players, RBEL becomes kinda obsolete, which, I think most would agree that already dropped quite a bit in quality last season. With teh quality of the tournament in mind, I think we should keep 8 teams for the time being.
Franchising however is not a good idea imo. I think we have a good structure for deciding teams and it also makes for more creative and fresh teams and CAs scene (where else would u find team Arcanine at the same place as team "insert broken ahh legendary here"), which is a big charm of RBTT; being one of the only 5 tours on the site that awards CA as a recognition for getting in. Therefore I'm heavily against franchising.
Just drop the manager signups early and give a break week for the artist to finish up the work.
2. Draft vs. Auction:
Altho snake draft has been always part of RBTT, Auction makes for a much more engaging draft planning for the managers, and it's also more enjoyable for the spectators. It might be first time for many managers but everything starts somewhere. So hopefully it's not a debate anymore but would absolutely love to see how auction goes.
3. Number of managers, act and substitute rules:
With teh community cord (which was a really nice idea from last year) and self sub, I think 2 managers are enough. However, I don't hate the idea of 3 managers. Arguement for 3 is: other top tours have the same/ shifting to 3 (whenever I'm referring to top tours it's usually SPL and SCL), specially with auction being the format (if that's the case) an extra brain is always appreciated. It can also help with tz differences to keep things extra smooth. Arguement for 2 is: the workload is generally lower than other tours, with practically no prepwork involved after the auction...
I get the concern of some bias (which tbh exist everywhere and is kinda uncontrollable without extreme measures) and diluting the player pool but I'm ever so slightly biased towards 3 managers. Specially with upto 2 playing per team.
If I'm not mistaken, SCL allows players self subbing without any managers intervention (or alleast this year did, I recall noname winning a game while self subbing... Correct me if I'm wrong) and I think it just makes sense considering circumstances might occur when no manager is available and a sub is needed. It's definitely better than handing an act win when a sub was available (basically get as many as possible, if not all games done).
As for acts we should just follow the official rules with a bit more leniency in case by case example since it's Rands.
4. Formats:
Either works but I prefer 16 with some rework:
With SV going into 4th year, we don't need a 3rd SV slot.
BSSF has an extremely niche playerbase, but so does some other formats.
The reasoning to keep or boot HC is the same, it's the embodiment of randomness. That very quirk can make it extremely fishy and unfun; specially when u have to bank on it in do or die situation in the biggest Rands tour.
There's a significantly active randubs community our there and we should let them decide on what to do with the dubs slots, however from a spectators pov, the dubs2 slot did intact feel somewhat lackluster compared to dubs1. Personally I think we should make it 1 dubs and move the 2nd dubs slot to RBEL, where the power level should be much more similar.
Roulette is overall a good format for showcasing skill, considering we have players that are good into multiple tiers. But the execution is kinda poor imo. The built-in roulette format potentially being able to load 3x gen2 is just absurd. Instead I suggest a multi gen format, where the host rolls 5 formats for each series without any repeat within the series. Or a pick and ban style format with the 1st format being rolled by the host.
Now for some formats worth exploring:
1. B12P6 SP: This format it extremely liked within and outside of the active rands community and most top players I know enjoy it asw.
2. VGC Rands: If we decide to keep 2 dubs slot, I think we replace dubs2 with VGC rands, considering the mainstream success of champions and easy access to VGC in general recently.
3. Battle Factory: Been saying this for a while, but battle factory bridging Rands to general play is always fascinating, and this can get more players than some other tiers since a lot of good tier clickers might join which is also positive for overall quality of the tournament
4. Broken Cup: HC but better, with more control
5. Baby Rands: I just want a format represented where I can roll
6. Hybrid Bo3/5: if we want to represent as many formats as possible, we could merge some niche formats into a single bo3/bo5 such as Mono Rands, Draft factory, BDSP/LGPE rands etc.
We can also do the same for the tiers that are in contention for booting to still keep them. However I'm not sure how this format will affect overall playerbase and quality of the tour.
With all that being said, I propose smth like this:
• B12P6 SP Bo3 / VGC Bo3 / HC or Broken Cup Bo3 / BSSF Bo5/7 / Hybrid Bo3/5 (Mono, Baby, Draft; add BDSP / LGPE if Bo5) / Champs Bo3 - For the last 3 slots
5. Team Structure:
3 managers, upto 2 playing.
16 starter + 4-6 subs (20-22 players in total, maximum 25 people if 3 non playing managers)
Edit: 4-6 subs as in minimum 4 and maximum 6, instead of a hard cap so that managers have a bit more flexibility drafting
6. Budgeting, Self Buys, and Retains: 200k for an average of 10k per player in case of minimum players (like most other tours)
Manager is self buys are 15k for 1 and 15k+20k, total 35k for 2
I also like retains and for that I suggest:
- Every manager must include a primary and 2 secondary choice teams they want to retain from. From there, the following in order:
- If a manager pair is rerunning with, they get their previous team to retain from.
- If a manager pair splits into multiple, one of them gets the previous team, and the others are considered as new managers; upon hosts discretion
- If a different manager pair wants to take a team with same mascot as the previous year and nobody else wants to retain that team or it doesn't clash with the prior criterias, they get to retain from that team.
- If completely new managers and mascots, including the remaining managers from criteria 2: they get assigned teams by choices given and/or randomisation; upon hosts discretion
Finally... That was a whole lot of rambling and it took me a while.
Tried to touch as many topics as possible, but still feels like I missed smth (ig I'll just make new posts if I remember smth)
Anw a lot of these are my personal opinion/preferences, and I don't know how much weight they carry. There will probs always be some disagreement since no single thing can satisfy the mass, but at the end of the day I just hope we all can come to some conclusions that contribute to RBTT X being the biggest and best version of the tour we have seen so far. As I've said many times, this is my favourite community on the site so looking forward to enjoying the biggest tournament of it and it's success with everyone.
From my experience (1500+ ladder games, peaked the ladder several times), despite it being super fun, some actions should be taken on B12P6 before we seriously consider it as an option for RBTT, just like what we did with HC. Some abilities, like Shadow Tag, Huge Power and Speed Boost, can give the player a huge advantage, sometimes even an auto-win at team preview. As in the Shared Power (OM) tier, maybe we could restrict some abilities based on their win rate, meaning they cannot be shared with teammates.
From my experience (1500+ ladder games, peaked the ladder several times), despite it being super fun, some actions should be taken on B12P6 before we seriously consider it as an option for RBTT, just like what we did with HC. Some abilities, like Shadow Tag, Huge Power and Speed Boost, can give the player a huge advantage, sometimes even an auto-win at team preview. As in the Shared Power (OM) tier, maybe we could restrict some abilities based on their win rate, meaning they cannot be shared with teammates.
Absolutely down for necessary balancing being done. Just think B12P6 is still more played and enjoyable than HC or BSSF, not to mention those are already represented in other tours
Why dubs 2 is good, actually (my opinions on other things forthcoming)
1. Two slots are inevitable
More than anything else, dubs 2 is an inevitability. Gen 9 Random Doubles is a beloved format, so much so that it has either the second or third most activity of any format on PS at any given time. Gen 10 is on the horizon, and with how popular gen 9 doubles is, it would be upsetting to see it unceremoniously dumped from RBTT next year. Champions Randdubs, the newest randoms format, already has a top slot over 1800, putting it well into the upper half of rands formats in popularity. This is evidence that at least two randdubs formats can be popular at once. Gen 10 randdubs, once available, will get a slot due to convention. Losing gen 9 would make the majority of dubs players pretty unhappy given how the community has flourished under the format. Why should dubs not get to keep its highly designed, highly polished premiere format in RBTT when the gen ticks over when singles gets to keep every single format? Why go back to one slot this year just to likely go back to two slots next year?
2. Dubs 2 did not suck last year, and to whatever degree it did, that had as much to do with drafting choices as the quality of existing players.
A vocal minority of randdubs players (many of whom are more prominent in tiers) tend to play in most randdubs tours but publicly treat the format like an easy, low-skill matchup simulator that very few players are actually half-decent at. Frankly, I find this attitude exhausting. Randdubs is *hard*. The decision space is huge, the macro is tricky, and the tactics can get very niche. Because games are shorter, every mistake seems larger, leading people to misjudge how badly someone actually played. It's not a coincidence that players like ionnss, Marco, and soT consistently have wildly positive tournament winrates. They are exceptionally skilled in a very skill-intensive format. Treating everyone who makes more mistakes than those three in high-pressure games as if they're just bad demeans these skilled players and the format as a whole. The slot with Dinis, Freya, etc. starting most weeks was by no reasonable measure a truly weak slot. To whatever degree it was, well, I can name at least 5 players who didn't play in last RBTT that I'd be happy to field in dubs 2 this year. Also, to the latter point, well, one team literally tried to put a player who didn't want to play dubs in their dubs 1 slot. Room for improvement, perhaps.
3. Slot quality isn't even the right question, and if it were, we're listening to the wrong people to answer that question.
Every strong randdubs player knows that the top slot 1 players are substantially better than the slot 2 players. No top randdubs player actually thinks the slot 2 games were bad as such (discussed in randdubs cord with ions, sot, freya, marco, dinis, etc.). People who hardly play the format should not be opining confidently on game quality. Don't we care more about what something adds to the tournament and to the community? And to that end...
4. The randdubs community is a hugely active, growing, and positively engaged segment of the randoms community.
Most importantly, randdubs is still the second most popular ladder on PS (I cannot overemphasize this). Unlike last year, though, there exists a random doubles server with over 130 members. This year, we ran two forum tours, including a full randdubs team tour with >60 players, plus three in-server non-live tours and three live tours. These had the dual effects of giving lots of players lots of practice and introducing new players to the format, some of whom have become quite strong. Why should one of the only actively growing sections of the rands community be punished with less representation? During this discussion last year, people pointed out that if random doubles is so popular now, why don't we have our own spaces and tournaments? Well, now we have the 2nd biggest ladder and a ton of tour activity. We are constantly trying to get both existing players in other formats and new players we find on the ladder interested in competitive rands. We want to be heavily involved in the continued growth of the rands community, but if now isn't the time to solidify randdubs as a two-slot format to singles' 12-14 slots in the rands community's premier tour, then why should we keep trying?
5. All the additional tour activity should help managers make more informed draft decisions and have a clearer view of who is really involved and who really has the chops to hold their own. This one is self-explanatory.
Ngl as someone who was a manager with both frags irpa and I all deeply involved in the rands community going through the names trying to snag a second slot was rough. There were known forum players that we recognized but not many who really did much randdubs.
Dubs does have a very active community but the drop off after the tier 1 players is in my opinion the biggest gap of any format and having a key part of your argument trying to validate a second randdubs slot by blaming the managers for their choices because you think there were more qualified players that didn't get picked is silly.
I can't speak for others but we went through all information at our disposal from individual randdubs tournaments, to current and past spreadsheets, ladder, information from the players themselves when they reached out etc and a chunk of the batch that went slot 2 or subs had nothing but forum rep at most.
Teams / Franchising
8 teams seem like the way to go for reasons previously articulated here. Personally, I find Smogon's system of franchising, where franchises just exist in space and may have different managers every year, somewhat bizarre. I would prefer to leave teams up to manager discretion, with repeats allowed if managers wish to repeat. Moreover, build in enough time for artists to have a comfortable workload. It certainly won't hurt managers to have more prep time. To that end...
Managers RBTT gets more signups than any other team tournament on the website, or so I've been told. Sorting through these signups and coming up with a good draft plan is a Herculean task, one for which I'm sure a third voice would be useful, even if it's mostly just to handle a couple of niche formats, make strategy, or check things over. If someone wants to be a non-playing third manager on a team, I don't see why it helps anyone to stop them. Even if 3 managers are superfluous once the season gets going due to self-subs (and they rarely are; I really enjoyed the mix of perspectives we had on lineup choices for my 3-manager RBEL team), people should still be recognized for their draft contributions. If we do draft, 3/5 seem like fine rounds for manager buys. If we do auction, I'd propose one of two systems:
Where x = [overall budget] / [min # of players per team]:
1st manager = 1.5x, 2nd manager = 1.25x, 2 playing managers max. People usually suggest the opposite, but making the second manager more expensive is far more abusable, since you can simply have one top-tier playing manager you get for well below any fair-market rate and two non-playing managers. In all likelihood, your second playing manager isn't as strong as your first, and this acknowledges that.
Hosts set managers' self-buy price on a sliding scale from ~0.8x (literally 0 experience in any rands format or any remotely analogous format) to ~2x (Clear favorite to go X-1 or better in their slot), 3 playing managers max. This is how we ran RDTT. In this formulation, you remove the strict need for non-playing managers, since you price players as individuals. This pricing is somewhat fraught, since you're essentially making a manager tier list, but I think you can do it in a low-drama way by giving managers a chance to review your structure and argue for changes to the overall thing or individual tiering, and by never publicly sharing individual prices. Figure out who's self-buying before the auction, then set up rosters and a budget accordingly.
Auction vs. Draft The predominant opinion seems to be cold feet about the switch, but personally, I would be curious to see it in action. It's RBTT X, what better time to try something new and different? I enjoyed the RDTT auction, and I enjoyed the RBTT/RBEL snake draft. They're both good systems, but how do we really know which one people prefer overall if we don't give the other option a shot? I would like us to try an auction, with a plan to gather feedback and re-evaluate next year. If we do an auction, I'd prefer no retains. I think it's an uninteresting and anti-competitive system.
Slots I personally would prefer 14 or even 12 slots. At 16, it really feels like your individual contribution is low, and it's very hard to watch even half of your team's games. That said, I also think the people out here defending BSSF, Hackmons, 2, dubs 2, and Roulette all make some great points. Admittedly, I am not especially sympathetic to SV3 enjoyers, as it's just a bit boring to copy-paste a format three times. I do not actually want dubs 3, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't want it without us having three different versions of randdubs at a tournament-ready level. I would be super down to see b12p6, OM mbox, BF, or other ideas over SV3 with the caveat that I want to hear from players who play the formats if they think those formats are RBTT-ready.
To that end, I want to leave a few notes on individual formats and why they're either valuable as-is or how they can be improved. In general, I value diversity of formats over pure competitiveness, because I think keeping the community at-large involved benefits long-term competitiveness more than trying to make today's tournament as elite as possible.
I am no expert here, but I found the games very interesting to watch and ask questions about last year, and I like the segment of the community that this format appeals to. I also think it's very, very competitive and skill-testing from how I've seen it analyzed.
People fundamentally misunderstand hackmons. Yes, some games are lost from the first turn, but this is true in every randoms format. Hackmons has a very low floor for how competitive an individual game can be, but the skill ceiling is huge, as shown by a few players consistently being the best at the format. What makes hackmons unique from other randoms formats is the skills it rewards. Hackmons is won by a combination of a) game knowledge, b) creativity with unusual tools, and c) very high-level macro. The players who are great at the format are great because they have an at times unnerving ability to guess the type, effects, and/or power level of an incoming move they haven't seen and proactively plan around it. There is a degree to which this starts as random guessing, but as a game goes on, you can learn so much from both what your opponents do and also what they don't do. Seeing people use this skill is just as fun to me as seeing them use all the skills on display in any other rands format. It's also fun as hell to watch. I would be very sad to see it exit the tournament.
Even as the current number 1 on the Champs rands ladder, I really struggle to full-throatedly say that the format is at a place where I'd want to see it in RBTT. We have room to grow in terms of set design, in terms of balance, and in terms of our understanding of the format. People also need more time to learn as players. I would, however, be open to considering VGC rands. SV has active and polished set designs. B6P4 OTS doesn't fundamentally change the mode enough that these sets don't still work well, with maybe a few exceptions. I would love to hear more from other doubles players on this subject. I would also love to have a bo5 slot if we aren't doing VGC, personally.
Roulette sucked last year, and it didn't have to. The best version of roulette is Bo5 with loser picks next game (basically circuit playoffs format). You could either make game 1 format rotate week by week or just start with 9. I would also advocate for including every single RBTT format, since it creates a really cool slot where the whole team can come together and help a player train and practice for their format. If this is all too much, at least make it Bo5 and pre-roll formats so people can prepare.
I think a thematic mbox can be interesting and can act as a way to simultaneously shrink the size of the tournament without totally losing representation. I know these slots have real issues, but I don't to see them default excluded, since I think they do have their uses. I could see doubles mbox being a lot of fun down the line when we have more formats, or even now with a smaller pool (VGC, Champs, Champs VGC, 9, and Hackmons are all at least there and fun).
I do not think now is necessarily the appropriate time to bring these into existence, but I want to flag them as a possibility and likely eventual necessity. As more generations come out and new formats get created that people are enjoying (VGC rands, B6P12, etc.), it will become harder and harder to justfiy an entire slot for every single mainline singles gen. Some of these gens are unpopular, with few mainers and virtually no new players learning the formats at a high level. I imagine this won't improve without active intervention to build those communities and playerbases. Needing 11 (CG5 + CG3 are a given) slots next yearish, then 12 a few years after that (hopefully) will start to leave very little room for other formats. One potential solution is to find a way to combine less popular formats into one slot using either an alternating system or a system that combines games from differing formats. The other is for number of slots to just keep growing indefinitely to accomodate new formats and generations.
(disclaimer: I am not the one making the big decisions this RBTT, do not take what I'm saying as gospel)
If we really want some shenanigans we could try to really open up the roulette slot and turn it into "each team picks ANY one random format and the third game is one pop of Roulette"
It'd be the ultimate test of versatility and could be a great use of the team's subs, since the subs are often meant to be generally alright at anything needed
If we are gonna change roulette I think BO5 or repeated gens is an auto reroll to ensure unique gens in the set are the only real options. Everything else is too much imo
I hope Champions and/or Champions Doubles are included. I think they are great formats that are fun and competitive, and I would sign up to play them if they were included. I personally prefer playing them to their Gen 9 counterparts. Just my 2 cents. I don't really have an opinion on anything else
I'm not particularly good (read really bad) at articulating my thoughts well so :bewear: with me...
1. Number of Teams and Franchising:
This year between RBEL, WCoR and Circuit, we had some good showing from new names. However I don't think we have enough new quality players to form 2 whole new teams. Specially considering there might always be some drops from previous season and some might just not signup due to reasons. And if we try to squeeze in every potential players, RBEL becomes kinda obsolete, which, I think most would agree that already dropped quite a bit in quality last season. With teh quality of the tournament in mind, I think we should keep 8 teams for the time being.
Franchising however is not a good idea imo. I think we have a good structure for deciding teams and it also makes for more creative and fresh teams and CAs scene (where else would u find team Arcanine at the same place as team "insert broken ahh legendary here"), which is a big charm of RBTT; being one of the only 5 tours on the site that awards CA as a recognition for getting in. Therefore I'm heavily against franchising.
Just drop the manager signups early and give a break week for the artist to finish up the work.
2. Draft vs. Auction:
Altho snake draft has been always part of RBTT, Auction makes for a much more engaging draft planning for the managers, and it's also more enjoyable for the spectators. It might be first time for many managers but everything starts somewhere. So hopefully it's not a debate anymore but would absolutely love to see how auction goes.
3. Number of managers, act and substitute rules:
With teh community cord (which was a really nice idea from last year) and self sub, I think 2 managers are enough. However, I don't hate the idea of 3 managers. Arguement for 3 is: other top tours have the same/ shifting to 3 (whenever I'm referring to top tours it's usually SPL and SCL), specially with auction being the format (if that's the case) an extra brain is always appreciated. It can also help with tz differences to keep things extra smooth. Arguement for 2 is: the workload is generally lower than other tours, with practically no prepwork involved after the auction...
I get the concern of some bias (which tbh exist everywhere and is kinda uncontrollable without extreme measures) and diluting the player pool but I'm ever so slightly biased towards 3 managers. Specially with upto 2 playing per team.
If I'm not mistaken, SCL allows players self subbing without any managers intervention (or alleast this year did, I recall noname winning a game while self subbing... Correct me if I'm wrong) and I think it just makes sense considering circumstances might occur when no manager is available and a sub is needed. It's definitely better than handing an act win when a sub was available (basically get as many as possible, if not all games done).
As for acts we should just follow the official rules with a bit more leniency in case by case example since it's Rands.
4. Formats:
Either works but I prefer 16 with some rework:
With SV going into 4th year, we don't need a 3rd SV slot.
BSSF has an extremely niche playerbase, but so does some other formats.
The reasoning to keep or boot HC is the same, it's the embodiment of randomness. That very quirk can make it extremely fishy and unfun; specially when u have to bank on it in do or die situation in the biggest Rands tour.
There's a significantly active randubs community our there and we should let them decide on what to do with the dubs slots, however from a spectators pov, the dubs2 slot did intact feel somewhat lackluster compared to dubs1. Personally I think we should make it 1 dubs and move the 2nd dubs slot to RBEL, where the power level should be much more similar.
Roulette is overall a good format for showcasing skill, considering we have players that are good into multiple tiers. But the execution is kinda poor imo. The built-in roulette format potentially being able to load 3x gen2 is just absurd. Instead I suggest a multi gen format, where the host rolls 5 formats for each series without any repeat within the series. Or a pick and ban style format with the 1st format being rolled by the host.
Now for some formats worth exploring:
1. B12P6 SP: This format it extremely liked within and outside of the active rands community and most top players I know enjoy it asw.
2. VGC Rands: If we decide to keep 2 dubs slot, I think we replace dubs2 with VGC rands, considering the mainstream success of champions and easy access to VGC in general recently.
3. Battle Factory: Been saying this for a while, but battle factory bridging Rands to general play is always fascinating, and this can get more players than some other tiers since a lot of good tier clickers might join which is also positive for overall quality of the tournament
4. Broken Cup: HC but better, with more control
5. Baby Rands: I just want a format represented where I can roll
6. Hybrid Bo3/5: if we want to represent as many formats as possible, we could merge some niche formats into a single bo3/bo5 such as Mono Rands, Draft factory, BDSP/LGPE rands etc.
We can also do the same for the tiers that are in contention for booting to still keep them. However I'm not sure how this format will affect overall playerbase and quality of the tour.
With all that being said, I propose smth like this:
• B12P6 SP Bo3 / VGC Bo3 / HC or Broken Cup Bo3 / BSSF Bo3 / Hybrid Bo3/5 (Mono, Baby, Draft; add BDSP and LGPE if Bo5) - For the last 3 slots
5. Team Structure:
3 managers, upto 2 playing.
16 starter + 4-6 subs (20-22 players in total, maximum 25 people if 3 non playing managers)
Edit: 4-6 subs as in minimum 4 and maximum 6, instead of a hard cap so that managers have a bit more flexibility drafting
6. Budgeting, Self Buys, and Retains: 200k for an average of 10k per player in case of minimum players (like most other tours)
Manager is self buys are 15k for 1 and 15k+20k, total 35k for 2
I also like retains and for that I suggest:
- Every manager must include a primary and 2 secondary choice teams they want to retain from. From there, the following in order:
- If a manager pair is rerunning with, they get their previous team to retain from.
- If a manager pair splits into multiple, one of them gets the previous team, and the others are considered as new managers; upon hosts discretion
- If a different manager pair wants to take a team with same mascot as the previous year and nobody else wants to retain that team or it doesn't clash with the prior criterias, they get to retain from that team.
- If completely new managers and mascots, including the remaining managers from criteria 2: they get assigned teams by choices given and/or randomisation; upon hosts discretion
Finally... That was a whole lot of rambling and it took me a while.
Tried to touch as many topics as possible, but still feels like I missed smth (ig I'll just make new posts if I remember smth)
Anw a lot of these are my personal opinion/preferences, and I don't know how much weight they carry. There will probs always be some disagreement since no single thing can satisfy the mass, but at the end of the day I just hope we all can come to some conclusions that contribute to RBTT X being the biggest and best version of the tour we have seen so far. As I've said many times, this is my favourite community on the site so looking forward to enjoying the biggest tournament of it and it's success with everyone.
Oh also the only reason I didn't mention champs or champs dubs is cus they're way too unstable as of now...
If they were stable enough we should definitely get a champs slot.
(Probably also should've mentioned them with the niche ones but kinda forgor)
As in the discord server? Come to think of it that was a big part of why last year had such good energy, the server was great definitely good to use again
As in the discord server? Come to think of it that was a big part of why last year had such good energy, the server was great definitely good to use again
i think auction is good and would really like double selfbuys. i also like three managers to have more people able to handle stuff like scheduling conflicts and other disputes that happen during the tournament
the notion of two selfbuys being overpowered as i saw earlier in the thread feels quite silly as the amount of players that realistically cross the 20+k mark is certainly low (just look at rdtt if u want a point of comparison in rands). just have each selfbuy cost 20k and there will be absolutely no issues regarding balancing or anything of the sort.
also replace doubles 2 with champs rands thumbs up emoji
Halfway commenting so that I get notified when people respond to this thread
Halfway commenting because I have feelings on a topic
I am a strong believer that doubles 2 should not be removed for this coming RBTT. I am freely going to admit that I am biased as a doubles main, but I will put my feelings here as briefly as possible.
Doubles is the second most popular ladder out of all randbats ladders
I believe the average skill level in rand doubles has increased since last year
I find it upsetting that we are suggesting axing one of two doubles slots when there are 10+ singles formats to participate in. For the record I do not think any singles formats should be cut either, I'm just saying the tournament already has limited space for doubles players to participate in.
Oh, also: don't cut hackmons.
Thanks for reading!
i think auction is good and would really like double selfbuys. i also like three managers to have more people able to handle stuff like scheduling conflicts and other disputes that happen during the tournament
the notion of two selfbuys being overpowered as i saw earlier in the thread feels quite silly as the amount of players that realistically cross the 20+k mark is certainly low (just look at rdtt if u want a point of comparison in rands). just have each selfbuy cost 20k and there will be absolutely no issues regarding balancing or anything of the sort.
also replace doubles 2 with champs rands thumbs up emoji
also please add tierlock to player signups instead of having to make rulings on individual signups like there was last year (The Xrn Hackmons Incident)
Central discord hub and self/team subbing. I thought that was terrific and was all positive, let's do that again.
2 or 3 managers idc, seems like in a lot of 3 pairs one is just there for fun tho (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Though if we go toward auction with multiple self buys I would urge you to steer clear of 3 to mitigate gaming the system. paysa you say 15, 20k for self buys and retains, those numbers don't mean a lot without a total budget, what did you have in mind?
On franchising, I feel like its pretty unnecessary at this point. Maybe I was for it last year, I don't remember, but wasn't the idea of franchising that the avatars would get more attention? That would mean putting manager ins and selections up much sooner and I've heard no whispers of that. I really think it'd be fun to keep the mascots dynamic and changing every year. However, if we do get more time and lisence to make the avatars better and more inspired/creative, franchising makes sense. Don't think retains are super necessary at this stage.
I will say I'm not the most familiar with auction style drafts so this may be informing what I say here but I truly see no reason to deviate from snake, it feels balanced enough and imo has been working fine so I'm confused why we're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Imo a hard cap of 4/5 subs correlating to 14/16 starting slots is a good ratio, so 19/20 players per draft.
I am vehemently against 10 teams. A 7 week regular season feels like a marathon as is, it is entirely unnecessary to extend thr tournament. I was feeling exhausted, burnt out and fed up toward the end of the regular season, even at points earlier on. Last years tournament went for 10 weeks, which is already monstrous, and consider the bad team(s) who are out by week 6, shit would be miserable. We aren't ready for expansion, imo it would do more harm than good.
The extended player pool isn't talented enough to make me feel there were many snubs last year. As others have mentioned too, RBEL quality dropped for the first time this year, so it doesn't feel like anyone is banging down the door like in previous years.
On that, I would support dropping the teams to 14 starting slots, partly related to the rationale above, as well as the observation that many
Keep everything the way it was last year in terms of games per set imo. Keeping bo5 in one Gen 9 slot, Gen 1 and BSSF is good, but would be fine to add it to HC too. Keep everything else bo3.
I also find myself agreeing with soTsoT 's point regarding moving away from the formats with shallower player pools like gens 2 and 3, not necessarily in this iteration but certainly in the future.
Also let's go back to tiebreaks being best of 3 sets instead of 5 please. The point of a tiebreak is to break a tie.
I know some of the powers that be have a special HC boner and it's probably not going anywhere but I think it is worth discussing anyway. HC is cool and of course there is a skill curve, but at the same time you could often throw any bum in there and expect a few wins, so there is a case to be made either way. I'd like to keep it.
However, I have a gripe with the selective removal of Wonder Guard. Why the fuck are we trying to balance this format???? Wonder guard is often beatable, but I feel people often resign mentally if it pops up. Yes it is lame and hard and sometimes impossible to beat, but so are Last Respects, Toxic Spikes/Debris, Strength Sap (hell, some times recovery in general) and much more. Removing WG doesn't fix the format and make it immediately, or noticibly more balanced, so why are we even trying? Just leave it alone and let HC be what it is.
I think this format's time is up unfortunately. There are little to no actual players of the format, which lead to Slikkles and Emboar dominating the rest of the pool last year. I do like the format but I believe it has run its course. If it does stay leave it as bo5 tho.
If we leave roulette in, let's just leave it as it is, I thought it went swimmingly last year. My only problem was it made the Gen 9, 3 and 2 pools significantly weaker due to players like drifttrick, livid, MDB and Losco being drawn there. The top players being in these slots isn't the problem, but it relates back to the idea mentioned earlier about moving on from some formats. Right now it feels like its one or the other, we can't have quality across the board at the moment.
I am staunchly against the notion of changing the format, any kind of banning and picking it entirely unnecessary and annoying. I am someone who loves Roulette, it is my favourite format on the website, and not knowing what format you're going into until you're there is where the joy of the format lies for me. It forces each player to be ready for anything there is, not just what they/their opponent is good at. It encourages true all rounding, and who cares if you couble up on a format? Thats part of the fun, if you can't stomach old gens, then play something else.
The thought of including this format has grown on me, could definitely see it replacing SV3 or Dubs2 in both a 14 and 16 player lineup. Only issue is I don't really think it has a playerbase so would be very reasonable to leave it out.
I feel like the skill levels of these formats were pretty relative last year, with the edge probably going to SV3, but one should be axed. I'd lean toward keeping Dubs2, but wouldn't care at all if it got canned in favour of something else. Would just prefer that we steer away from champs dubs and modded formats like VGC (bring pick) if dubs 2 is included.
Subs don't need something to do, they can offer support, practice and analysis throughout the season, plus they get a custom avatar for just being there. Their job is to be ready in case they're required, and thats great! If you really feel you should play every week, RBEL is right there.
Thanks for taking the time to read folks. Looking forward to another season, please draft me!
Roulette could be improved a bit still, like instead of making it a random tier... make it being a pick based tier you can add ban to that decisio, only problem is that... players will need to screenshot the bans and picked formats...
I think I've read most of the posts in this thread so far, and I've seen both arguments made for and against BSSF. With this post, I'll be making counterpoints to some of the common arguments made for removing BSSF, and in the process, I'll probably be defending some of the other formats on the chopping block (mainly HC).
Competitiveness:
There has been recent BSS tours that have showcased BSSF, and the most recent iteration of BSSCL, the current gen BSS team tour, had two BSSF slots per team, which made for 12 slots in total for 6 teams. And if you look at the sheet, it had a good number of people that ended with positive records. This is not even including some of the people that has shown success in RBTT in the past playing BSSF that didn't play BSSF in BSSCL. So the notion that "BSSF is not competitive, there's only 2 players that beat everyone else" is just not true.
On that note, why is it a negative against a format if there's 1-2 people that end up with a crazy record? Would anyone say that if in gen 9 rands slot 1, pokeblade101 ended the year with a 9-0 record? No one would say that the gen 9 rands slot 1 is uncompetitive. So why does it apply to other formats? Every year there are a few people that will go almost undefeated or undefeated, that doesn't make the format uncompetitive.
Another thing I commonly see: "No new player can break into BSSF." Ignoring the fact that I just showed an example of a team tour that has given players an opportunity in the past to make their name in BSSF, which directly led someone to be drafted into RBTT, results aside, does this even happen for the other formats? Every year, we know that we'll see almost the same names in many of the older formats, and most of the formats altogether. Let's not pretend that RBTT is something that gives opportunities for newer players to break in.
Skill level/Subbing for BSSF:
Yes, BSSF is harder to have someone just jump in and pick up the format. The short timer in comparison to other Smogon formats is something that needs practice to get used to, and said short timer means you cannot possibly look at every set a Pokemon can have and make a decision based on that. But, that's what makes BSSF a joy to watch. It showcases a different kind of skill expression that isn't present in the more "standard" randbats formats, just like how Hackmons does. It's really funny that we are considering adding B12P6 while simultaneously considering removing BSSF, imo.
I really liked the point that sotsot brought up with not making RBTT another copy of WCOR, which is funny considering RBTT came first. We should have some unique formats in RBTT that differentiate it from WCOR. Not saying we should be bringing back a Mystery Box-esque slot, but I think we already have enough slots that represent current gen and old gen rands.
I will also say that it is not the fault of the BSS/BSSF community if a manager doesn't do their research on the BSSF slot and drafts someone willy-nilly to fill the BSSF slot and then get shocked when they don't perform well. And it's rands, just because someone had a good year one year doesn't guarantee they will do good the next, and that happens in all formats. It is not purely a BSSF thing, it's a rands thing.
Misc. things:
Don't really have a big preference on number of teams, but 10 seems like a lot. I would prefer expanded slots over two more teams.
We should not even be considering bringing BSSF back to BO3, like many people have said before me. Keep it BO5.
considering there's people who claim that they don't know any bssf players other than 2 names i just wanted to have a spot to highlight them from the most recent bss team tour
I won't drag this post out too long since many others have come in and made excellent points, but wanted to throw my opinions in there on HC for the record
Arguments against HC's inclusion are valid, I completely understand it. I lost r1 of the HC open this year to probably the two worst teamgens/matchups i've ever gotten in my entire competitive mons career, and the thought of that happening to a team in the RBTT playoffs with the week on the line is brutal. That said, soTsoT's post re: keeping RBTT a unique hub for some formats that aren't just standard gens 1-9 singles is great and I think it should carry the day (in my heavily biased opinion). Plus, with RBEL including HC last season and some other great HC events, a ton of new talent has emerged and the playerbase is flourishing. Which 8 players will get drafted this season is anyone's guess, but the pool is deep enough that every manager will get a very solid option at that slot.
Don't want to pick on Rowlet because they made some excellent points in their post, but one thing I just want to push back on very briefly is that, IMO, BC is not a better version of HC in any way, shape or form. I think a lot of people find BC fun which is totally ok, and some claim it's more fun than HC (I really don't, but that's subjective). However, I think it's far less balanced and far less competitive. Unlike HC, BC loses a lot of the "information warfare" element that makes the metagame so difficult and strategic. Your opponent in BC has 5 unrevealed mons? Spoiler alert - they're all broken and ridiculous. It's hard to read your opponent's moves and deduce much, since often they're just waiting to get their snowball monstrosity in to start swinging (well, one of them anyway - usually, you get 2-4 of those per match). I would strongly advocate against any BC inclusion for those reasons.
Also want to briefly touch on my good friend Rabbit's suggestion re: roulette style HC, where the BO3 can include other gens HC metas like gen 8, 7, etc. My issue with this is that there are actually significant differences between HC gens - gen 9 plays a lot different than 8 (thanks to dmax), and both play FAR differently than gen 7. You may have an HC player who is great at gen 9, but struggles in 8 and 7 often just due to a lack of experience with those gens, and I think it's a little too much draft pressure on managers to have to account for all of that.
To me, the simplest "fix" to HC in rbtt is to make it bo5. Yes, the goal is to iron out some of the variance and allow the better player to prevail more often than in bo3 - this isn't just theoretical, though. I've seen it pay off almost every time it's deployed. A couple years ago, Amaranth and I played in a Hackmons tour called HPL and Amaranth played all his gen 9 HC sets as bo5 instead of bo3 - the difference in competitiveness and set quality was staggering. HC doesn't lend itself to long games typically, and so I think the shift to bo5 will increase competitiveness without much downside other than slightly more difficult scheduling. Plus, it's free extra HC - does it really get much better than that?
Rbel should not be considered when deciding rbtt. A lower quality in rbel is not a bad thing, it’s a participation tour designed for newcomers.
Leaning into format diversity is a nice thing, seeing battle factory and bss go was always sad to me. They’ve always been about as competitive as hackmons. IMO you put them all in or you lean into competitiveness and take hc out. I think including them differentiates the tour.
The teams were made and people spent money on them with the idea they would be franchised. It would be strange to go back on that now, despite the teams not being as cool as they could have been.
10 teams makes for a LONG tour, I don’t mind it, but I think 8 feels nicer to be a part of. Though people outside may wish the inclusiveness of 10. 16 slots felt worse than 14 as well, but I can see people arguing for 10 teams if you want 14 slots.
I think auction is better than snake draft, though I don’t think I have the capacity to manage an auction this year.
Please add tier lock, last year had some disasters without it.
Greetings, i've enjoyed myself reading all inputs in this thread. As last year, this will surely prove to be most useful for hosts to make the best decision community wise. I want to share my.view on some topics while providing a biit of spicy ideas :)
I'm starting by saying that 8 teams seems to be an established opinion here, so i will focus on this scenario for everything i say. 16 formats
I agree with Paysa for number of formats, team compositions and the whole auction structure ideas. (eventually)
We will very likely have 16 formats next year, so i agree it's wise starting now without axing any unneccessarily. I do agree with Optidox that it's tiring to follow all of them, as i believe you don't really have to do that as a spectator. You will likely focus on the last ones or the tier that you enjoy the most and that's perfectly fine, as annoying as it might be i think the advantages are more than the disadvantages. Retains and Franchising
I strongly think there should be no retains as one of auction main advantage is the team variety you end with up even against your plan, and i think retains ruins the fun of it. Feeling the same for franchising in general, with RBTT always providing us each year with a lot of surprising new mascots, managers and (from last year) team names! I personally feel it would be a big downgrade artistically speaking.
Okay, which formats??
As many others here, i agree with Sotsot's take on formats which is why i believe Hackmons and BSSF(or a similar tier but i feel like that it's the one that got the most solid arguments on the matter) should remain. And this is also why i'm proposing...something different from what people expect here.
I'm not a huge believer of Roulette and the benefits it provides, but if it doesn't stay as it was last year and gets updated (like Hammy or Riceman suggested) i think it can be worth to take into consideration. This is the point i'm mostly unsure about, thus why i'm not able to provide more insight at the moment.
Gen 9 Random Battle - Best of 5
Gen 9 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 9 Champions Random Battle- Best of 3
Gen 8 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 7 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 6 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 5 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 4 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 3 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 2 Random Battle - Best of 3
Gen 1 Random Battle - Best of 5
Gen 9 Random Doubles Battle - Best of 3
Gen 9 Champions Random Doubles Battle - Best of 3
Gen 9 Hackmons Cup - Best of 3
BSSF - Best of 5
Random Roulette - Best of 3 or 5 / B12P6 - Best of 3
Of course you noticed the Champions formats. I don't know how much it's the case for singles so i'll let you all argue about sv3 vs champs, but randdubs champs has been quite popular. As many, i don't think the format is as balanced as regular dubs but i agree with Livid Washed that it's a fun and fairly competitive one that might deserve a space. It requires some experience of its own and feels rather different from regular randdubs, i think it would be a fun experiment.
Thanks to RDTT data and the ladder being as active as it is, there should be no problem on finding good players!
Also keep in mind that in 1 month we are going to have regulation M-D which should add a bunch of new mons + items, and just AV alone or choice items would improve the tier a lot.
Dubs enjoyers will be able to specialize in what they prefer which i believe to be a value (when gen10 will come out we WILL have 2 different dubs slots so this will continue to be the case)
Of all current dubs alternatives from a regular randdubs slot - which i'm not against, preferring the first to be bo5 - i believe champs to be the most solid.
Dubs mainers, mainly SolaceAntsoTsoTOptidoxsnorlax142857 who already wrote here, i would very much like to know your opinions on this matter specifically.
I'm really curious of what you all may think! Thanks for the attention o7
I'll admit, the more people suggest this, the more it grows on me. I really enjoy the format personally, but I was worried people would feel strongly that the format wasn't balanced enough. I would certainly be open to including champions.
(I had this written a while ago but ig there's no better time to post this than now right after Freya's post lol)
I will most likely not be able to join this RBTT and I don't feel very strongly about most of the things discussed, no admin decision (unless totally unhinged) would be what causes me to join or not join this tour so just a quick, rather boring and mild reply from me in order from least to most important to me.
First Dubs slot (if there are 2) - I would be in favor of it being bo5 but it's not a big deal (only thing is please let things regarding tiebreaks and such be specified BEFORE we get to that point in the tournament <.< )
Second Dubs slot existence - very much think it should stay, especially in light of the recent RDTT, I believe the quality has slightly increased from last year and info on the dubs community is easily within reach to fill 2 slots, even if I do believe the first slot will look much stronger. randdubs makes any skill gap (or even just getting a single turn right) look huge, that's the nature of it (and I personally believe second dubs slot is stronger than third 9 slot though the gap is admittedly small).
Second Dubs slot being anything else - No. Just no tbh. I feel like I've given Chubbles (champs dubs) a very fair shot (laddered it a good bunch and played it in RDTT) and that shot resulted in me strongly believing it is much inferior to regular randdubs (at least right now). It's too early, it's not polished enough and it'll certainly get an update right before (or during?) RBTT, making it even less polished and level balanced. The only thing this format has above regular randdubs is full para odds being lower but almost every time I play this format I think to myself "Wow... Wish I was playing regular randdubs rn" and I've never felt the opposite (and the fact that you have to manually change something in both manual calc and calcdex that you wouldn't need to in any other format isn't a big negative but it's certainly not a positive for chubbles). I much prefer VGC rands as a format but ehhhhhhhhhhhh. I love the format, great fun, just not something that feels like a real slot idea. It's a pretty major deviation from a format you can just challenge someone to, obviously has no ladder and imo barely anyone is actually good at this format (from my personal judgement of RDTT gameplay and experience playing it in other occasions).
(ig I'll just make new posts if I remember smth)
