Other 1v1 Tournament Policy Discussion Thread

DEG said:
With all team names being horrible except Hyperspace horrors, I think going w/ rosa subtle proposition is fine. We could fix some team names like the Vikavolt and the fishes cause honestly these edits sounds nice at least. I also think if someone can make names with groundium-z+kyub or suspect test philosophy they would be iconic, but I'm bad at names so I can't.
Click to expand...
Groundium-Z = Tectonic Rage
Kyurem-black = big and bad = titan/tyrant

Tectonic Titans
or
Tectonic Tyrants
You’re welcome deg, Suspect Philosophy is a bot though and I don’t do suspect tests.

Edit: I also only like Hyperspace Horrors and Wooloo Warriors
 
hi poll done, thanks for voting

FINAL RESULT
Candidate Votes Status
------------------------ ------- --------
Hyperspace Horrors 11.00 Elected
RPS Rhyperiors 11.00 Elected
Trigger-Happy Thwackeys 11.00 Elected
Playful Panchams 11.03 Elected
Wooloo Warriors 10.97 Rejected
Mighty Morphin' Morpekos 0.00 Rejected

This means that our eight franchises are decided!
Hellfire Heatrans
Metro Boomin' Megarays
Drive-By Dragapults
Big Baller Barraskwedas
Hyperspace Horrors
RPS Rhyperiors
Trigger-Happy Thwackeys
Playful Panchams

start brainstorming horrors art plz
 
Ladies and gentleman, I could not be more happy to reveal the art for the new franchise in 1v1 Premier League, the Hyperspace Horrors!

1618126555817.png

Thank you so much to Blazenix for making this incredible art <3!
​
I think the next step in this process would be deciding if we want to have retains from PL V in PL VI, and if so, how we want to handle those. An update on that will come soon.
 
After the recent Seasonal situation, the validity of teams using less than three Pokemon has become a matter of debate. The precedent established by normal tiers doesn't really apply in this case, and so we're more or less free to craft our own ruling on it. A couple things to note :

- The issue up for debate is whether using less than three Pokemon and losing is considered throwing by default. Regardless of how this ends up, genuine attempts to throw will still be punished, regardless of how many Pokemon are used.
- Accordingly, don't use this thread as a discussion on the throwing rules in general; focus on this specific use case.
- As always, one liners, shitposts, and rude / disrespectful posts will be deleted.
 
Boat said:
After the recent Seasonal situation, the validity of teams using less than three Pokemon has become a matter of debate. The precedent established by normal tiers doesn't really apply in this case, and so we're more or less free to craft our own ruling on it. A couple things to note :

- The issue up for debate is whether using less than three Pokemon and losing is considered throwing by default. Regardless of how this ends up, genuine attempts to throw will still be punished, regardless of how many Pokemon are used.
- Accordingly, don't use this thread as a discussion on the throwing rules in general; focus on this specific use case.
- As always, one liners, shitposts, and rude / disrespectful posts will be deleted.
Click to expand...
Throwing is bad, obviously. I don't condone losing matches on purpose.

Using fewer than 3 Pokemon on a 1v1 team is not throwing. It changes the shape of the game from an RPS to a 50/50, alters the opponent's perception of your threats, and frequently contains a single, well-prepared Pokemon that gets clicked as a counter to most things the opponent is likely to use.

There is a psychological impact of bringing an empty slot, it pressures the opponent to try extra hard to beat the one obvious threat you have. Losing to a 2-mon team will also likely impact the opponent's mindset throughout the rest of the series, ex. discouraging excessive risk taking. We shouldn't change the basic format of 1v1 (bring 1-3 Pokemon minus a banlist, pick 1) just for these tours. If I can use a 2-mon team anywhere else, I should be able to use it in a competitive tour setting without facing a ban, provided I'm playing with the intent to win.

"Must bring 3 1v1" is a slightly different metagame than standard 1v1, and this extends to every gen we hold tours for. The differences between 1v1 and "must bring 3 1v1" are small (blanket coverage mons are slightly more or less relevant), but they exist and I dislike the precedent that sets about tours altering 1v1 metagames, or Smogon tours using different rulesets than ladder & roomtours.

Throwing aka losing matches on purpose does not look like this. Bringing an empty slot or Magikarp is the literal worst way to try throwing a match since you're drawing everyone's attention to your transgression. People draw spectators intentionally with 2-mon teams because they're trying to win with a flashy, risky style that can throw opponents off as part of a real competitive strategy. It's certainly not for everyone, but players who decide to use these teams should not be punished.
 
I will note right off the bat that after this case occurred and came to a close, I've thought about it and have since come to the conclusion that intent to lose (throwing) and intent to handicap should be treated as two separate matters, with the latter case warranting a lesser punishment than what we use for throwing, for people willingly choosing to play poorly or make "gambles" where standard plays instead would be better in a vast majority of scenarios (to which whether you win or lose doesn't matter to the same extent it does for defining throwing). I do not mean to make this discussion about this particular notion, rather, I've namely described it to act as a framework for my response below:

Given my described distinction of intent to lose vs intent to handicap, I believe no form of team structure should constitute throwing unless the design of the team itself and what happened in the battle, after being put under scrutiny, can be described as willingly trying not to win (ie using mono Metronome, trying to trigger the Endless Battle clause, using only Splash or Explosion, bringing Magikarp alongside two regular Pokemon and then actually picking Magikarp, etc). These are all things that can happen with anywhere from 1-3 mons, so to that extent, bringing less than 3 mons should only matter if the circumstances of the battle meet the described criteria.

For cases that may not necessarily be throwing but are still egregious, they can be looked into by means of intent to handicap as described above if it's something generally blatantly inferior to running just a regular team (ie running just 2 regular mons with no intent to lure, running all LC mons, using moves like Ember or Water Gun in place of generally superior moves, allowing yourself to lose to an excessive portion of the metagame, etc). Granted, whether or not this idea goes through isn't necessarily a factor in discussing team size and its relevance to throwing, though I do believe it relates enough to the case that sparked this discussion to be worth mentioning, and will be happy to discuss the idea on Discord, so as not to distract too much from the main intent of this discussion here.
 
I myself am not an expert on the rules, but I do have some experience with throwing on ladder. I myself feel like throwing can be very hard to detect, as you can bring 3 Pokemon and still be throwing. You can bring 2 Pokemon and also be actually trying. You can intentionally try to choose the wrong thing to lose, which can also be hard to name as throwing if that choice legitimately should have beat one of their Pokemon. So basically, throwing will always find a way to exist, being more inconspicuous each time.
 
There's always going to be a fine line to whether this is right or wrong. As most of the time the final say ends up being decided by one person's opinion. So the first step to all of this is making sure we have more than one party ruling. With that being said it what are the rulings?

1v1 at the end of the day, is one on one. It doesn't matter how many Pokémon you bring if you are only allowed to pick one. In other formats such as Battle Spot, players will bring 4 Pokémon rather than the full 6. This is due to the user having a clear focus on those Pokémon being their best choice to win. Not needing the extra two for midgame purposes. Now 1v1 is different from Battle Spot in few ways, having 4 Pokémon used being the outlined difference for this post.

As a player of 1v1, being in a tournament match, the longer it drags on the more you become invested. Tensions will run high during some matches ; especially if its a match vs someone later in the tournament. Some users will spend all week in preparation in order to win, others may only take a couple days or show up day of reusing teams. If during a series you decide on making a new team or set you aren't given that much time. (w/ timers and in-between game timeframes) If your opponent doesn't accept a battle and takes a while. Ends up saying "gimmie a few minutes." ect. You're gonna begin to question if they cteaming you. With all these added pressures and limited time, sometimes you can only make 1 Pokémon set. And in hopes your opponent doesn't change up the teams some users may just bring 1 Pokémon.

The biggest issue I have with this, is the "intentionally throwing" aspect. This should only be taken into account if you believe the player is effectively losing in order to gain some sort of advantage. The advantages would either be seedings or letting a friend win. With the issue stated on not a full team of Pokémon, if a user were to win with a disadvantage no issues would be taken against them, but only if they were to lose. (So, if a user decided to make cteam, and brought just 1 Pokémon because they didn't have time and fear the opponent would switch teams ; if they got the match-up they wanted. But ended up being crit or haxed. Saying now they have to be banned the dumbest call.)

If a user is trying to lose for the gain of themselves or others that is where I draw the line. If a user loses because they brought something that they believed would win them a game. Why punish said player?
 
I like Rosa's distinction between 'intent to lose' and 'intent to handicap'. It's easy to bring a normal-looking team, click a bad mon, and then make up some inane reason for your choice. This is what the majority of people will do if they really intend to throw the battle. Obviously, this form of throwing is bad and should be punished in any context, for reasons that need not be explained. I think everyone agrees this wasn't the case with mishlef, who'd have thrown the game earlier and in a less overt way if he'd wanted to.

Much more common are people who, for whatever reason, limit themselves in terms of teamslots, mons, moves, or whatever. I honestly don't care much about situations like this, and it's extremely unclear what even counts as sufficient 'intent to handicap'. Tournaments have featured people using LC mons, triple D-tier teams, 2-mon teams, monotype teams, or the same team they used every single other match, and while some of those were made with the intent of winning, some were obviously just people messing around. If someone wants to storm SSNL with mono dragon, more power to them: I don't see the point in tolerating it in lower rounds but turning it into a problem when they make it to the upper ranks. Whether Mish 'g5 mono aroma' Lef's dumb stunt paid off or not (spoiler alert: it didn't), as long as he was trying to win I don't see an issue with it. Strats like those will just cause you to be eliminated somewhere along the way, and if they don't then the issue is really with every other player, tbh.

An important exception to the above: in team tours I 100% think that 'intent to handicap' is a punishable offense, for the simple reason that people get put on a team in the understanding that they will play optimally (or at least, not deliberately hamstring themselves) for that team. This also lets us bypass the problem of defining 'intent to handicap' by using the opinion of the other players on that team: if a player brings mono aroma g5 despite all their teammates disapproving, I'm completely in favor of letting that team push for a tourban or other punishment.
 
- Bringing fewer than three Pokemon will not automatically be considered throwing.
- Throwing is still throwing, and you should be able to justify the decisions you make in the builder as strategic, especially if that decision is something as borderline as bringing fewer than three Pokemon.
- This strategy is a grey enough area that utilizing it in a team tour against your teammates could be grounds for sabotage, given the right circumstances.
 
Hello everyone!

For the past months, a good portion of the community thinks that DPP should be removed from current team tours (PL, WC) due to it being stagnant and unbalanced, leading many DPP players to migrate to other gens. So, the 1v1 TD team is interested in hearing the community's opinions about the 8th slot for PL. The options are: Keep DPP, Multigen (Either bo5o1 multigen (seeded format), or bo3o5), or SS4.
To be clear:
-"Bo5o1" multigen is a best of 5 series, as it was in the recent seeded multigen tournament, starting with SS, and the loser of each game determines which gen the next game will be until someone wins the series, with no gens being repeated.
-"Bo3o5" multigen is a multi-set series, where players need to win two out of a maximum of three best of 5 series, starting with SS, where the loser picks what the next gen will be, with no gens being repeated. Because this format would only have 3 gens used, it is also up for discussion as to whether or not BW or some other setup of gen selection could also be used.

We welcome everyone's opinion, and don't be forced to make a big post if you dislike writing, a small paragraph will suffice if it has a well-articulated opinion.
 
Last edited:
DEG said:
Hello everyone!

For the past months, a good portion of the community thinks that DPP should be removed from current team tours (PL, WC) due to it being stagnant and unbalanced, leading many DPP players to migrate to other gens. So, the 1v1 TD team is interested in hearing the community's opinions about the 8th slot for PL. The options are: Keep DPP, Multigen (Either "seeded" multigen, or bo3o5), or SS4.
To be clear:
- "Seeded" multigen is a best of 5 series, as it was in the recent seeded multigen tournament, starting with SS, and the loser of each game determines which gen the next game will be until someone wins the series, with no gens being repeated.
- "Bo3o5" multigen is a multi-set series, where players need to win two out of a maximum of three best of 5 series, starting with SS, where the loser picks what the next gen will be, with no gens being repeated. Because this format would only have 3 gens used, it is also up for discussion as to whether or not BW or some other setup of gen selection could also be used.

We welcome everyone's opinion, and don't be forced to make a big post if you dislike writing, a small paragraph will suffice if it has a well-articulated opinion.
Click to expand...
Axe DPP; free Multigen. Bo3o5 requires more building than Bo5o1, but either would be acceptable.

I'd prefer Bo5o1 Multigen over Bo3o5 to keep teambuilding to 5 teams per opponent instead of ~15, allowing the multigen player on a PL or WC team to contribute to other slots without getting overwhelmed by building requirements every week.
"Bo5o1 Multigen" makes more sense as a name than "Seeded Multigen," since seeding has nothing to do with the gameplay format.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to give an opinion on dpp as I'm not familiar with the gen/ don't have PL experience. However I feel a bo1of5 multigen would be the best replacement if it's decided to be axed. Multigen can give representation to every generation and is a very cool concept for a tour like this, I thoroughly enjoyed playing it in the recent seeded tour. Bo3o5 sounds really weird when the other tiers are only 1 series, I would keep that idea for it's own tour. I'm not sure how stretched ss3 was last tour since this will be my first, but having 4 ss slots sounds like the last slot will end up being pretty uncompetitive imo. Multigen gives SS coverage as well as older gens so it just sounds like the best idea to me.
 
Here we go ig-
  • I don't really see ss4 as an option, not much to say other than there's not enough people to support it
  • I am not opposed to multigen if we had to axe DPP, I just think it would take otherwise good players away from their main gen, weakening competition in other areas. If we have to do this, please, don't do bo3o5.
  • If it wasn't obvious by my previous statements, I am in favor of keeping DPP. DPP is quite top-heavy in terms of playerbase, yes, but many DPP players don't play other formats to the same level, if at all. Axing DPP would be removing several good players out of PL, simply because the gen they play isn't well-liked (especially by people who don't play DPP regularly). DPP's removal would lower the amount of people available to draft, whereas the multigen slot would likely eat into the SS/SM pool, not draw new players in. We can't create players out of thin air - PL without DPP would be stretched thin imo
 
Hi

SS4 sounds cursed af

Bo3o5 sounds like way to much building for one week

Bo5o1 seems good but like what itchy said, you would nuke dpp mainers if you axe the tier

DPP or Bo5o1 honestly
 
I abhor DPP 1v1 and would love to see it removed. It's been discussed at length now (especially with the Cress suspect) that there's not really a satisfactory way to balance the tier and the interest in it is at an all-time low. I am not of the belief that known DPP players will be unable to switch up tiers. The number of people who want to play DPP in PL are greatly outweighed by those who avoid it like the plague.

Seeded has shown to be competitive and interesting through its two iterations. Players known for being proficient at multiple gens have done well in both seeded tours. There's a concern that seeded would move some players from other potential slots where they may be "best" such as Potato from bo7 but I don't think this concern is legitimate. Every PL has flexible players taking slots that they may not be known for; and to me, drafting flexible players is already necessary for a successful team and it's exciting to see people in new tiers.

I think bo3o5 should be off the table for PL, maybe you can argue it for WCup, because it requires way too many teams for a 9-12 week tour. Also knowing how this community operates upwards of 15 games means these series will last for eons which is lame and could present scheduling issues.

SS4 is lol
 
I don't really love either option, tbh.

- SS4 is hard to say, since I'm not sure if we really have a bustling playerbase for even all 3 of our currently existing SS slots, much less enough to support a 4th one.
- Bo1o5 is janky for multiple reasons; I don't really have much experience in it myself, but constantly switching between gens for the entire series seems kinda noncompetitive (especially in a team tour setting where you really need to reserve your heavy hitters for the more important slots), not to mention it'd be kinda weird having DPP be involved when the proper DPP slot itself is gone. The biggest concern here, imo, is that what you gain from the potential removal of DPP simply does not meet what is demanded as it pertains to a Bo1o5 multigen. For a format like this, there's really not much reason not to just toss in a sub with sample teams and have them use !pick and probably still win due to how wildly different the meta for each game will be from the last.
- Bo3o5 is most notably hyper demanding on the prep side; repeating teams isn't the end of the world, but you'd still need like, at least 9 just for 1 slot. Also, since it will be guaranteed to always start with SS, it is in a sense an SS4 slot, with a non-SS player otherwise needing to be extremely talented at both SM and ORAS in order to compensate, of which very few people specialize in both.

Overall, while I do understand that DPP is in kind of a rough place, I don't think any of the other options are really doing much better than just keeping it. The best replacement I could personally see is maybe ADV, but that'd require going from BW to ADV, which is off limits.
 
I absolutely loathe DPP 1v1 and would adore to see it taken away. It s been talked about for many years now (especially with the Cress suspect) that there's not really a satisfactory way to balance the tier and the interest in it is at an all-time low. I am not of the mindset that known DPP players will be able to switch up tiers. The number of people who want to play DPP in PL is greatly outweighed by those who avoid it like the plague.

Leaderboard tour (LT) has displayed to be competitive and interesting through its two iterations. Players acknowledged for being good at multiple gens have done well in both leaderboard tour (LT) tours. There is a concern that the leaderboard tour would move a few players from other possible slots where they may be "ideal" such as Potato from bo7 but I do not think this concern is accurate. Every Premier League (PL) has versatile players taking slots that they may not be known for; and to me, drafting versatile players is already required for an adequate team and it is exciting to see people in new tiers.

I think bo3o5 should be off the table for PL, maybe you can argue it for World Cup, because it requires far too many teams for a 9-11 week tour. Also knowing how this community functions furthermore than 15 games means these series will last for generations which is boring and could present play time issues.

SS4 is jaja
 
Satanic Beast said:
I absolutely loathe DPP 1v1 and would adore to see it taken away. It s been talked about for many years now (especially with the Cress suspect) that there's not really a satisfactory way to balance the tier and the interest in it is at an all-time low. I am not of the mindset that known DPP players will be able to switch up tiers. The number of people who want to play DPP in PL is greatly outweighed by those who avoid it like the plague.

Leaderboard tour (LT) has displayed to be competitive and interesting through its two iterations. Players acknowledged for being good at multiple gens have done well in both leaderboard tour (LT) tours. There is a concern that the leaderboard tour would move a few players from other possible slots where they may be "ideal" such as Potato from bo7 but I do not think this concern is accurate. Every Premier League (PL) has versatile players taking slots that they may not be known for; and to me, drafting versatile players is already required for an adequate team and it is exciting to see people in new tiers.

I think bo3o5 should be off the table for PL, maybe you can argue it for World Cup, because it requires far too many teams for a 9-11 week tour. Also knowing how this community functions furthermore than 15 games means these series will last for generations which is boring and could present play time issues.

SS4 is jaja
Click to expand...

where tf did you get the name “leaderboard tour” from
 
Satanic Beast said:
I absolutely loathe DPP 1v1 and would adore to see it taken away. It s been talked about for many years now (especially with the Cress suspect) that there's not really a satisfactory way to balance the tier and the interest in it is at an all-time low. I am not of the mindset that known DPP players will be able to switch up tiers. The number of people who want to play DPP in PL is greatly outweighed by those who avoid it like the plague.

Leaderboard tour (LT) has displayed to be competitive and interesting through its two iterations. Players acknowledged for being good at multiple gens have done well in both leaderboard tour (LT) tours. There is a concern that the leaderboard tour would move a few players from other possible slots where they may be "ideal" such as Potato from bo7 but I do not think this concern is accurate. Every Premier League (PL) has versatile players taking slots that they may not be known for; and to me, drafting versatile players is already required for an adequate team and it is exciting to see people in new tiers.

I think bo3o5 should be off the table for PL, maybe you can argue it for World Cup, because it requires far too many teams for a 9-11 week tour. Also knowing how this community functions furthermore than 15 games means these series will last for generations which is boring and could present play time issues.

SS4 is jaja
Click to expand...
I agree but bro u rly said leaderboard tour :blobnauseated::blobnauseated::blobnauseated::blobnauseated:
 
I'd assume we wanna keep it 1v1 related. So pqs can't play pinball and gets wins (sorry). The hard issue is finding another generation people care about. And the further back you go, the less people care, as pokemon tries to improve gameplay each gen. LRXC has done work with ADV, so if we wanted to keep an older gen we could do that. (Even though I'm clueless as to wtf goes on in that gen myself.) But, besides that other option would be giving ORAS a 2nd slot. Oras has had a 2nd slot in tours before, and was removed when gen 8 arrived. So if we want to stay with basic stuff that people enjoy ; as should be our main focus. I believe ORAS should get its 2nd slot back and once generation 9 is released we can discuss the option for ADV or 10 slots then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top