Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

ss2>dpp>sv uu>sv4(lol)

what we had last year is fine in all honesty but I wouldn’t be opposed to a dpp slot, considering sv3 is a jobber slot but ogplhas some real players it seems
 
SS2 > DPP > SV4 > UU

with 3 SV slots, SS probably has the largest undrafted player pool which means that adding that slot makes a lot of sense for a more exciting draft. I would suggest DPP for similar reasons but during OGPL it became pretty clear that the DPP pool is meager. SV4 and UU I wouldn't recommend, UU lacks development and another SV slot would be spreading the player pool a little too thin to my liking. I really don't understand why people are advocating for UU and SV4 and citing player pool as an argument
 
DPP > SS2 > UU > SV4

If there should be any changes to the format of PL from last year, I believe having a DPP slot would be the play. With the recent clefable ban, I believe the tier is primed to be played in tours once again. The tier has a lot of room for innovation and I believe having a slot for it in PL would be good. Even if we say there is a chance a team would need to find someone to play DPP, DPP has been easy to build and incoming resources in development I believe would make it easier to build for the tier.

Alternatively, bringing back SS2 would also be good. It has been the common practice before and I believe it is a safe pick overall. There are still a ton of SV players right now that have had experience in SS and I don't think most would be opposed to playing SS.

SVUU is a somewhat fun OM however I am unsure how this will hold up to the player base. The other tiers mentioned above already had success and certain players in that tier yet there is still room for improvements. If SVUU is deemed successful overall and garners enough players that would play this tier over any other tier then it might not be so bad. The lack of resources might be a problem but we are thinking ahead in this case.

SV4 is too excessive. Too much SV already please no. This is not gonna help the metagame a ton compared to when there is already three SV slots. Please no.
 
bern said:
ss2 > sv uu > dpp >>> +2 gigaton hammer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sv4

ss2: i like more old gen appreciation also make ss better Mishlef, ss has more than enough playerbase for 2 slots and it's also cool for old gens to get love so i support it.

sv uu: i have not played a game of sv uu (Mishlef could be focused on making sv uu an actual slot over ss) but if i think it's better than SS and can actually make itself its own little community, then more power to it. also saying uu is not real is like, what.
dpp: no clefable means nuxl isn't going positive :psysad: jokes aside tho while i'm not against dpp being added i think there isn't enough community support for it, as builders you p much got jamez filipinos lumii rei and eli so i'm not super sure about this one, especially cuz i think rei and lumii are prob sitting this one out

sv4: keep sv4 is getting kicked in the balls, keep it to wc

i'm fine with manager pricing being kept the same as OGPL 2, i think those were fine
no opinion on retains
Click to expand...
change

dpp > sv uu

support for dpp has increased a lot and i can see it becoming a slot for PL no problem boblem, plus it helps for an established tier to get meta development, something it otherwise wouldn't get until like what, september? so yeah
 
Hey everyone, I am here to support SV UU > SS2, DPP, and SV4.

I realize I am not as involved in 1v1 as I once was, but I really think it would be a misstep to extinguish an opportunity to support something new and exciting in the world of 1v1.

I really dislike the notion that a tier has to have a ton of resources, or be "developed" or "established" to have playability. How did people play a metagame when there was no resources? Is that not often the most exciting time in a metagame, especially 1v1 metagames, where you might have a general idea of whats good but can explore and try new things? It's not like SV UU has totally new rules like inverse typing or camomons, I think competitors can look at the available mons, and make new and exciting teams within the same competitive framework as SV 1v1. I think its silly to suggest that this is a negative, in fact I think its a really exciting POSITIVE for a tournament that as many others have suggested, has lost a bit of that excitement, and it does all of this while being a current generation metagame.
 
My take on this is DPP > SS2 > SV4 > UU. I think that we should be looking at this from a perspective of how easy it would be to field a competitive set of players and look at metrics for managers to see what players are good instead of trying to bash each metagame. I feel that everyone is likely to have much more differing opinions about the state of each metagame, and trying to bash metagames seems somewhat unproductive. Of course I actually play DPP, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt here cause there's going to be some pro-DPP bias here.

DPP is in a pretty decent spot right now. I think that DPP got a pretty good boost in OGPL, with newer players like Nuxl, dreepy, and Slip doing pretty well in the tier. I think that DPP should get enough players between Euphonos, stravench, Jamez, Rei, PA, Nuxl, and dreepy. There's definitely other players, like Elo Bandit, Slip, and I who could definitely play DPP if needed, even though we're likely better in other tiers. Anyways, the playerbase for tiers like BW and ORAS is similarly dire, and I think that non-SS old gens having this sort of issue while trying to field a single slot in PL is not a completely new thing.

SS2 seems incredibly close to DPP to me, but I'm only putting it slightly behind. I think that like DPP, it's incredibly possible to field a good set of players here. The reason I have it behind DPP is that I think OGPL showed one of the bigger issue with the SS2 slot, which is that there's a lot less experience in potential SS2 players than DPP players. I also think that the addition of three SV slots would affect the SS2 player pool more than the DPP player pool, which is why I think it's a slightly worse option.

SV4 is where I think we have a pretty massive drop-off here. I do not think that we have the SV playerbase to support a fourth SV slot, and think that World Cup VII showed us a good example of this. Of course, PL is a totally different beast, but the fact is that SV4 dilutes an already somewhat underwhelming SV3 pool. I think it's definitely a weaker option than DPP and SS2, but I think that it's at least been tested, making it better than UU, given that managers would at least have some sort of data to go off of when trying to figure out who to select for a potential SV4 slot.

UU is the worst option to me at this moment but I can definitely see having a UU slot in future tournaments. There has been zero tournament representation so far for UU, with UU's first tournament currently being in signups. The biggest issue with this will be the sheer lack of data that managers will have to go off of in order to make draft plans in SV UU. It might be very possible to find a playerbase for UU, but in almost every case, the players would be better in another slot. I can see UU getting a slot in something like World Cup if it develops well from here, but I think that it is not ready for PL representation yet due to overall just being too new.
 
Slots: idrc about the balance between gens or whether DPP gets in. UU is brand new and axing anything to get it in is just bending to the hype train imo, there isn't the playerbase, resources, or knowledge to have it be a competitive pool, it's quite literally a few weeks old at most. The current old gens don't have slotting issues, UU will. Don't consider it. Maybe next PL.

Manager prices: voting has flaws, but I think they're overblown. I've enjoyed flat pricing scheme tours for other things like ompl / umpl. either works. formulas are wack but can be fine too. doesn't matter too much.

everything else: /shrug
 
Personal opinion; no preference between SS2/SV4/DPP, I just don't think UU is ready at all.

I don't believe UU is ready at all for an appearance in the "most competitive" tournament in 1v1. It's a new metagame that is born cause people were bored of our SV and it just has a long hype train behind it cause new toy. Listen, I would love to have UU, I was the one that introduced UU to PLs (in SM) and people didn't like it back so I had to sadly remove it (not saying the same will happen, just random old people lore).

I have a problem with how UU is structured rn. I'm not really convinced about the whole usage thing behind UU atm, there's also discussions about a "future" change to percentage and whatever, I don't believe a temporary metagame that doesn't consistently get updated should be in PL. There should be discussions and trials to nail the correct percentage when it comes to UU because a random "top 60" isn't really it. It's also hosting its first tournament only around 1.5 months before the draft, which is not enough time for figuring out what's happening, and tiering. I don't think we should introduce an untiered metagame in PL. + it's literally new, and people are just hyped cause their friends are playing it, I don't see a discord tournament as a proof that it's popular, we don't know how interested the community is playing it, we don't know if anything is broken, we don't know if there's going to be resources, we don't know which gen pool is going to get "weaker" for UU, it's a big leap into the unknown and that shouldn't happen in PL at all. Let's talk UU when there's actually concrete evidence that it's a tier that is here to stay (hype beyond a few months, resources, smogon tournaments, consistency in usage stats, and tiering)

Also formulaprice/flat price for managers, no more voting cause not sustainable+low trust after past tournaments.

team should start w/ 3 players by max
 
In hindsight I’ve realized there is no real reason to give a fuck on what format people want, y’all just gonna use that slot to throw in some jobber (maybe besides UU), y’all saw what happened with MG”

Then into its lifespan, you all decided it was too Mickey and slotted in some goombas and passed them used teams and hope they did well. (In reality you guys wanted every excuse in the world to get rid of DPP but 2 years later you guys are contemplating on bringing it back)


Because I’m a shithead, here’s what I think is gonna happen if one of the 4 slots gets out in

DPP: You find out something was secretly broken this entire time and the council decides to ban it (or not) and people end up hating dpp again

SV UU: Like multigen, people are interested but gets turned into a jobber slot

SV4: If SV3 is Mickey then SV4 was made for babies

SS2: Council is run by a bunch of stubborn people who acknowledge the shortcomings of the metagame but never actually do anything about it to try to improve the tier which then translates to a bunch of people expressing their distaste in the tier which makes less people want to play it overall which equates to less people wanting to go play it in the tournament

At the end of day, no one is going to universally agree on which tier is best, if you want to be safe, go ss2, if you want to be inclusive, go dpp, if you want to actually be unique with your tournament, go sv uu, if you want to be actually brain dead, go sv4, I can’t say there’s an objective right answer (however choosing sv4 is being objectively brain dead)

Holy, now that I’m looking at it with my old shitty take and the fact I said ss2 was the best option makes me want to jump off a bridge. But now I don’t really care what gets voted on atp as long as it isn’t sv4
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperMemeBroz said:
SS2: Council is run by a bunch of stubborn people who acknowledge the shortcomings of the metagame but never actually do anything about it to try to improve the tier which then translates to a bunch of people expressing their distaste in the tier which makes less people want to play it overall which equates to less people wanting to go play it in the tournament
Click to expand...
Name them
 
DPP > [SS2/SV4] > SV UU

It may be early for me to judge, but I do think SV UU would be Multigen incarnate in the long term as what SuperMemeBroz mentioned: overhyped and unsustainable.

Of course, as the leader of the DPP 1v1 metagame, I'd be way biased to vouch for this forsaken metagame after it was being axed in PL two years ago; I think the metagame is now in a better place than it was before, especially with its development being more active. It's high time to bring back this metagame to its former glory (for PL and probably WC for that matter!)

I'd be indifferent about SS2 and SV4 if DPP weren't selected, but here's to hoping the support for DPP is more than enough to reclaim its spot in major team tournament settings.
 
SS2 is far and away the best option for the scenario where there is only one slot being changed. It has the most resources for new players, has the largest playerbase of current players, I am kind of surprised theres even a question of removing a tier like ss2 which after surveys have shown that complaints about the tier are from a vocal minority and not from the actual playerbase/builderbase. SV4 we have seen has unappealing gameplay and a lacking playerbase with interest in regular sv already being questionable I feel this is simple to exclude. DPP has some merit in the sense that there was a couple new players and interest in the tier and I admire what euph has been doing with resources and I would be in favor of it over some other tiers but at the moment with no tour with the new bans as well I would air on the side of caution. UU is in a similar boat and with the tour being in its second round its still a bit early to have a consensus on the tier but in my (admittedly biased) perspective it is a refreshing meta to build with and a lot of new and unconventional techs have been able to find success. I think while pl might be too soon for either dpp or uu I do think they have the possibility of blossoming into possible tiers. There is a tier which I do oppose which is BW, its inclusion in the tour to me is a net negative on the tour. The resources available to new people are lacking, it has the same set of bad mechanics as DPP with regards to crit rates and the like. Almost every single new player has had to start off by working with someone already in the tier acting as a mentor/advisor. If anything I believe DPP should be included over BW as comparing the two tiers DPP has more resources, more interest, more ability for new players, more interesting for spectators and for mainers. Thats my BW rant portion which I do think people should really consider but maybe people aren't ready for that realization yet. TLDR SS2 is far and away better than every other option than UU ~ DPP > BW > SV4

I believe that manager buys as a whole are a bad idea, there are already issues with having the opportunity to have half of your lineup between 2 retains and 2 managers before the draft even started. This in some form needs to be removed, me personally I believe that 2 buys total is already a lot but is probably acceptable. I'll do a quick argument why I think manager buys shouldn't be banned. For one being able to buy 2 top players if they manage together is already absurd, secondly there is the issue of pricing. Flat pricing is going to either result in underpriced users or overpriced users with very rarely fairly priced managers, this just leads to lopsided teams going into the draft and should be avoided. With some other subjective or voting system we can see it leads to extreme lows and extreme highs in prices which are also bad. People also don't seem to realize something which seems obvious to me which is that people should have to pay a premium to buy managers as they are guaranteed (similar to retains) however others argue they should only be priced based on their clicking as their building will always be included. Overall the best method in my opinion is to remove manager buys entirely it fixes many of these issues.

I agree on keeping it at 7 minutes but I would like to push back against something that was said in cord about this ruling. When asked if a person fails to cancel the challenge but the 7 minutes have elapsed I was told that the game would happen and the offending party could not have act called against them. I have an issue with this due to the fact that I believe the purpose of the 7 minute timer is to respect your time, similar to normal act rules. It doesn't matter in act if the person is still online after 30 minutes they would not be denied act because the point of act is to respect player's time so I believe the same should apply to the 7 minute time.
 
Retain change proposal*
*just procedural

I'd like to propose a slight change to the retains system for the sake of fun. I don't want to change the functionality of retains. I just want to suggest that we don't have to keep the same names every year, like PUPL and RUPL. The only difference between these PLs and ours is that the retains / manager buys would just get inherited by teams with different names. If the managers want to keep an older name, nothing changes. This change allows for more manager creativity at no cost (that I see), other than getting rid of some of the franchise names decided like 2 years and a generation transition ago by a community vote. I don't think this loss is greater than the gain from giving managers the freedom to choose names for a team they have to live with for a couple months.

Thoughts? Concerns? Questions?​
 
Itchy said:
Retain change proposal*
*just procedural

I'd like to propose a slight change to the retains system for the sake of fun. I don't want to change the functionality of retains. I just want to suggest that we don't have to keep the same names every year, like PUPL and RUPL. The only difference between these PLs and ours is that the retains / manager buys would just get inherited by teams with different names. If the managers want to keep an older name, nothing changes. This change allows for more manager creativity at no cost (that I see), other than getting rid of some of the franchise names decided like 2 years and a generation transition ago by a community vote. I don't think this loss is greater than the gain from giving managers the freedom to choose names for a team they have to live with for a couple months.

Thoughts? Concerns? Questions?​
Click to expand...
I would make one addition to this, which is that in the event that someone does want to retain the previous name they should be allowed to do so (and given priority on that name). With that in place I'm fully on board with this as I've never liked the concept of retaining names to begin with.

I will say that over time teams (and their names) start to develop a certain personality that causes an interesting team, player, and manager dynamic. Easiest example I can think of is obviously the Go-Go Gogoats, which are not franchised but I think we all know what our reputation and theme was
 
I am strongly against giving managers the freedom of choosing names. We've given that option before and all we had were below average names, also looking at the other PLs name are just jokes and _not_ good + actually moderating the names is a task.

Echoing my own discord post;
Removing franchises: Removes the point of legacy teams, kills the hype around franchises and the bubble around them, annoying to remember all the names, + we actually standardized everything including top quality logos, we look more formal and official and I'm not looking forward Violet town vullaby vs glowing glaceon. In our definition PL is the peak of competitive 1v1 so standardizing it and making it more formal, classy, and beautiful via logo and legacy is better than random name generator. We have other team tournaments (current and potentially future) for freedom, I'd rather not ruin the formality of PL.

Random name generator in PL have more negatives than positives. Revisiting the franchises every gen + voting on a "pool" of official names is something I can get behind. Funny thing is that, in the latest survey people actually voted to franchise ogpl and not keep that freedom.
 
crucify said:
hello, I'm crucify one of your tournament directors and I am here today to open up discussion about the upcoming 1v1 Premier League VIII! Manager signups start approximately one month from this post. Note this post is not my personal opinion, but representative of the collective TD team unless otherwise indicated.
3 SV, 2 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - the same format as last year
4 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for SV 4. 1 SS will remain Bo7 (best of seven) pending community input
3 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW, DPP - delete SS2 for reincluding DPP
3 SV, 1 SV UU, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW - delete SS2 for introducing 1v1 UU into the tour pending it being ready for inclusion. More on UU later in the post.

other possible formats with sufficient justification will also be considered. SV slots include one Bo7 slot as always
The most recent team tour the unofficial OGPL used the following to decide manager buy prices:
Max 20k, manager pairs + hosts vote. The highest and lowest price for each manager were removed and then the rest were averaged: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouoRSeJJ1smagUeVG6MAWqoxTQU7I8/htmlview#gid=0
This and previous manager voting methods have been criticized for their subjectivity and ways to game the system; this seems to be the most refined way to do manager voting though. Other possibilities for how to go about manager voting include:

Flat Pricing - 15k for each buy, higher could be considered but not lower. It is also possible to increase it for if both managers buy, e.g. 15k for one buy, 35k if both managers buy, or to limit this to one self buy per team.
Formula based on record - used in a lot of other tiers, examples including:
(Price last UUPL you played in or 10,000, whichever is higher + (10,000 + (# of wins last UUPL you played in * 1500))) / 2 , rounded up to the nearest .500.

So for example, if I were to do this and I had 1 win in the previous year, my price would be as follows: (10,000 + (10,000 + (1 * 1500))) / 2 = 10750, rounded up to 11,000.
Manager price = (M-1) * 500 * # of wins last MPL + (P + 3000) + 750 * # of wins last MPL - 1000 * # of losses last MPL

M being the number of selfbuys performed by the team (1 or 2).
P being the price of said player in their last MPL capped at 17000.
If they never played MPL or if their price was lower than 10000, it defaults to 10000. The result is rounded up.
these can run into issues with managers who previously self bought and played, but that can be figured out. the goal is to make managers pay fairly reasonable prices for themselves, and for the prices to On Average be not too cheap or too high because outliers with any system is inevitable.

Also consider this and the next point to be long term; don't just look at what the prices will be for the upcoming PL, but what would make the most sense going forward.
There are those in favor of limiting the max number of manager buys/retains. Currently both managers can buy with a maximum of two retains. Limiting this would look like a maximum of three between the two, with a maximum of two retains.

Personal thought: I don't know the actual reason behind this. Starting with half of your lineup before the auction is silly I guess? Those who support this post on this.
We would like to set this rule straight after the controversy last tour. Players are eligible to call act if mid series after challenging their opponent does not accept within 7 minutes. If players are sitting there waiting and their opponent does not challenge for 7 minutes, they are not eligible to call act. This works like any other act call where if you wait more than 7 minutes but a game starts you are not eligible to retroactively call act. The timer resets after every game, though it could be interesting to have it be allotted time to use between games.

Note this rule does require you do have time stamps on in HH:MM:SS. This is not a high hurdle, but any complaints about this rule can go in this thread.
UU is an interesting concept in 1v1 that interest has been growing in. Ladder usage stats for the previous month can be found here smogon.com/stats/2024-04/gen91v1-1760.txt, look below 0.53% usage%. Others are planning on speaking more about the tier at a whole, but UU used to be a part of this tour and could be a part of it again if people want. An unofficial tour for it will be starting this month so people can try it out.

Giving Personal thoughts on this so people don't unjustly count this out:
I think UU is a cool concept because I know a lot of people play 1v1 to use fun mons, and the naturally lower power level and less centralization of UU (No archaludon, gouging fire, hearthflame, etc) makes that possible. Furthermore, I believe a lot of people find fresh 1v1 metas to be the most fun, and UU is fresh with the new month's usage stats; this also has the effect of UU having the same barrier of entry for everybody because it's new stats. Even if it doesn't get to the level of Developed as a tier like SS or BW, it would be fine to include because fresh = good generally.
All feedback on any of these topics are welcome; if there isn't any significant push/consensus for any of these, the status quos will be upheld. Feel free to bring up other topics related to tours. Decisions will be made on these before manager signups go up.
Click to expand...
Hello, thanks to everyone for posting, decisions have been made and are as following:
After reviewing arguments in this thread and discussing internally, the slots will remain the same, with SS2 included. We believe this will be the most competitive format and the most liked by the community as a whole, sorry to the DPP supporters.

SV Bo7
SV Bo5
SV Bo5
SS Bo7
SS Bo5
SM Bo5
ORAS Bo5
BW Bo5
We have settled on the following formula to determine manager pricing.

Price Last 1v1PL / 2 + Wins Last 1v1PL * 2000 = Self Buy Price
(If result ends in 250 it rounds down, if results ends in 750 rounds up. For example 17250 = 17000, 12750 = 13000)

Note that it says 1v1PL and not last 1v1 Team Tour (OGPL and WC not included). If you did not play last 1v1PL, it goes back to the last 1v1PL you played. For example, the last 1v1PL I played was 1v1PL VI, so my price and record would be from that tour. If you have not played 1v1PL before, your self buy price will default to 10000, which will be the minimum self buy price (If the formula for you adds up to say 8000, your price will be 10000).

Though there are outliers, we believe this formula to be a more objective and fairer method than manager voting and flat prices, and the most effective to mitigate issues people have with manager buys long term. Manager self buys as a whole will not be going away for the foreseeable future, but as the community grows it can be considered more seriously.
The TD team has decided to limit the maximum number of Manager Buys + Retains to 3. The main argument in favor of this include one of the main identities of PL being in the draft and not wanting to allow teams to potentially start with half of their starters. Limiting the amount of players a team can start with theoretically makes the auction more competitive. Note this will remove the limit of 2 for retains, so teams can retain 3 players while buying 0 managers.
This will remain as stated in my initial post. To respond to Mishlef's point, since sending a challenge is an active act, if you don't cancel it and your opponent accepts at say 7 min 30 seconds, the series will continue. Sending a challenge mid series is active, while waiting for your opponent for 30 minutes is passive is where the difference lies, and we do not believe it is a high bar to be paying attention near the 7 minute mark to cancel your challenge if necessary.

We hope people don't abuse this and wait the full 7 minutes to accept every game, and we reserve the right to shorten the time if necessary.
Still needs work but we will reevaluate it for future tours.
Thanks for reading and discussing, Manager Signups will go up Sunday so look forward to that!
 
Last edited:
I have not heard any official ruling on the format so here comes The Annual World Cup of 1v1 format discussion kick-off

What are the options:
1. SV7/SV/SV/SV/SS/SM/ORAS/BW
2. SV7/SV/SV/SS7/SS/SM/ORAS/BW
3. SV7/SV/SV/SS/SM/ORAS/BW/DPP
(4. SV7/SV/SV/SV/SS7/SS/SM/ORAS/BW/DPP)

Each format separately:
1. Copy last years format, "CG focus" by snatching one of the SS slots from the PL format
Pro: easier for less mainer heavy regions in regards to building and prep, faster meta development,no DPP
Con: SS had some of the best survey results I've seen ever, so clearly the meta is enjoyable and this might offend the playerbase, no DPP
2. PL format
Pro: SS playerbase gets their share, this format is what we are used to from PL, still no DPP
Con: less CG slots, still no DPP
3. SV4 dropped for DPP
Pro: dpp gets into an official tour again
Con: less CG and less SS, uncertain pool
(4. 10 slots
Pro: everyone is happy that their tier is involved
Con: who the frick has such a big amount of players)

I am personally for keeping last years format due to the pros outweighing the cons for me even though my team would benefit from a ss7 slot
still wanted to mention it in this thread cause its a question that came up and couldn't be answered clear cut
 
Last edited:
+1 vote for 4 SV, I think wc would benefit from a distinct identity beyond predetermined teams and a pools format to help combat teamtour burnout, especially since PL only ended last month. A focus on cg eases pressure on slotting and makes the tour more accessible for newblood on top of speeding up development in a post-Gouging meta, the latter being particularly beneficial amidst recent support for action on Regidrago. As an aside I think it's finally time to kill the "should we add dpp" discussion that pops up every teamtour since wc5 because despite it having happened 5 times now, there has never been enough support from the few people who even play the tier to justify its inclusion. Dpp has classic and now ogpl, if either of those cause its playerbase to explode significantly we can revisit in the future but it's a waste of time currently.
 
seconding blanched sentiment entirely I'm surprised dpp still gets brought up despite multiple years of no inclusion and a spot being made for it to be played in. No need to ignite this pointless discussion every single tour.
Once more I'm advocating for the removal of the 2nd SS slot, as I would keep doing for the 2nd SM slot when SS was CG, and the 2nd ORAS slot when SM was CG. The supermajority of all ss2 players would be just as or even more fit to play CG, which is the generation we always want to focus on. WC is also a great breakout tour for newblood to slot into, and it's much more likely to get newblood that plays wc, instead of other old gens that are consistently populated by old players who get resurrected specifically to fit a slot you have nobody else for.
So yeah 4sv 1ss 1sm 1oras 1bw
 
not trying to drop a one-liner but my vote is for 2x ss, I like and have always liked the double inclusion of the previous generation as it's a more accessible way to play and prep for washed old farts (me) who haven't made the switch to cg just yet. I think the common arguments (which have not yet been made in this thread, but are often seen) about smaller regions not having a strong enough pool of ss players to support a second slot can also be made about their 3rd/4th sv too in most cases, and that ss is an easier gen to pick up with a stable meta and well-maintained resources
 
We are soon reaching the 2025 circuit, and as such we would like to bring it to your attention. There's quite a few changes being made this year but we believe it will only strengthen the circuit and benefit the community. The 2025 circuit is not final, and as such we would like to hear your thoughts on not only what we can improve on, but also what we could or should be doing differently. I would also like to apologize for this not coming out earlier. We have been in discussions with UM to see how and if we could integrate our circuits. This has resulted in the UM circuit having a 1v1 Seasonal and 1v1 Open, however these will not qualify for our circuit. More on this will come out eventually. Below you will find our planned circuit for next year as well as the changes we have envisioned from this year's circuit:

2025 Circuit

1703696126215.png
1v1 Global Cup IV - Signups start on December 30th*
ost.png
1v1 Retro Premier League I - Manager Signups start on January 6th
>> SS 1v1 Classic Cup - Signups start on March 10th**
>> SM 1v1 Classic Cup - Signups start on March 17th**
tour.png
1v1 Live I - First live tournament is on April 19th*
1703696150963.png
1v1 Premier League IX - Managers signups start on May 5th
>> ORAS 1v1 Classic Cup - Signups start on July 7th**
>> BW 1v1 Classic Cup - Signups start on July 14th**
1703696141388.png
1v1 Ladder Tournament IX - Cycles start on August 4th*
1703696308823.png
1v1 World Cup IX - Player signups start on September 1st
>> DPP 1v1 Cup - Signups start on September 15th**
>> ADV 1v1 Cup - Signups start on September 22nd**
smogonmasters.png
1v1 Last Chance Qualifier I - Signups start on October 13th*
1703696303127.png
2025 1v1 Classic Championship - Round 1 starts on November 17th
1703696321140.png
2025 1v1 Championship - Round 1 starts on December 15th

* These tournaments give points towards the 2025 1v1 Championship.
** These tournaments give points towards the 2025 1v1 Classic Championship.

Proposed List of Changes + Clarifications
  • 1v1 Classic is being split up to run around the year. This will make sure that people don't have to play five different cups at the same time to have the best chance at qualifying, which was brought up as an issue in the 1v1 Discord a few times. This system also has the added benefit of bringing ADV back to 1v1 Classic, which it was left out of in the 2023 and 2024 editions of the tournament.
  • 1v1 Old Gens Premier League is being rebranded as 1v1 Retro Premier League I. While this change may seem like just a name change, it actually serves to make 1v1 Retro Premier League an official 1v1 team tournament. This will not have any standing on 1v1 World Cup IX's status as an official tournament, which it will retain. We are very open to suggestions about any format changes to make 1v1 Retro Premier League more distinct from 1v1 Premier League is appreciated. However, the current plan is to keep it at a six team format. If you have suggestions about the format, please post them below in the thread.
  • 1v1 Swiss is being replaced with 1v1 Live. The first edition of 1v1 Swiss was largely seen as the weakest tour format in the 2024 1v1 Circuit, so we wanted to replace it with another tournament. 1v1 Live is a new idea for this, as we've never had an official Live Tournament format, and we hope that it will drive up engagement with the circuit, as it showcases an entirely different style of playing 1v1 when compared to the more preparation heavy formats of tournaments like 1v1 Premier League and 1v1 Global Cup. After the Live Tournaments, we plan to do a Top Cut for the 16 highest placing players.
  • 1v1 Masters is being replaced with 1v1 Last Chance Qualifier. Despite the 2024 1v1 Circuit's edition of 1v1 Masters being much shorter than that of the 2023 1v1 Circuit, Masters still does tend to be one of the longest tournaments in the circuit, and can be very punishing towards players who lose earlier in the tournament. Last Chance Qualifier, which will be a Swiss tournament with no Top Cut, is meant to be a way for players to compete for less points, with the winner only getting 300. Each win will net a player increasingly more points. More about points systems will be below.
  • 1v1 Ladder Tournament IX will have a sixteen player top cut that will begin with three rounds of Swiss. Players who finish 2-1 or better in this Swiss stage will move on to the single elimination stage of the tournament.
  • 1v1 Live and 1v1 Ladder Tournament will now give points to the top 24 players to compensate for the lower amount of points awarded by points in this circuit as a whole. This means that for Ladder Tournament, points will be awarded to the top two unique players in each cycle who did not secure a spot in the playoffs.
  • The points structure for the circuit can be found here. If you have any more questions, you can direct them towards Forum Moderators.
Special thanks to Lumii and lost heros for offering to help with putting all this together.
 
1v1 Swiss is being replaced with 1v1 Live. The first edition of 1v1 Swiss was largely seen as the weakest tour format in the 2024 1v1 Circuit, so we wanted to replace it with another tournament. 1v1 Live is a new idea for this, as we've never had an official Live Tournament format, and we hope that it will drive up engagement with the circuit, as it showcases an entirely different style of playing 1v1 when compared to the more preparation heavy formats of tournaments like 1v1 Premier League and 1v1 Global Cup. After the Live Tournaments, we plan to do a Top Cut for the 16 highest placing players.
Click to expand...
1v1 Masters is being replaced with 1v1 Last Chance Qualifier. Despite the 2024 1v1 Circuit's edition of 1v1 Masters being much shorter than that of the 2023 1v1 Circuit, Masters still does tend to be one of the longest tournaments in the circuit, and can be very punishing towards players who lose earlier in the tournament. Last Chance Qualifier, which will be a Swiss tournament with no Top Cut, is meant to be a way for players to compete for less points, with the winner only getting 300. Each win will net a player increasingly more points. More about points systems will be below.
Click to expand...
Overlooking the fact that we basically removed Masters (seeded DE) for live tours, and not Swiss for live tours, every tour in the circuit is punishing for a person who loses early, points are graded the same between tours of the same format (and between them, all tours have the same winner reward because it should be equally hard for someone to be the #1 of any tour) . Making this tour worth less both devalues the tour itself, and makes it lose its identity as a qualification tour; since you'd have just swapped self proclaimed weakest format with a working one and added the restriction that it gives even less points than it used to. If it gives out less points, it implies that winning a Swiss tournament is somehow easier or less valued than winning other tours, which is just not true.

A change like making "last chance tour" just SE and setting it to 500 alleviates the mentioned issues, if any complaints with that format being too long are valid. Swiss is a good format on paper, but any complaints about Swiss from last year persist into this one, like a) the lack of interest or want to get their games done from people who join and aren't active, b) requirement of a host with integrity who knows how to host Swiss and generate matchups with no official tool for it (see: resistance which determines placement for no fault of players) c) general lack of enthusiasm with no top cut formats that lead to not having much to play for. The last is a fatal flaw for the final tour especially, because a person who needs a top 2 finish to ever make playoffs has no reason to play on after a single loss, while their opponent might just need a top 16 and would get a free win from them forfeiting. It's just not a good solution for a final tour, and will likely cause integrity issues for the circuit even if the other three tours are received with high appraise from the community.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top