Announcement BLT XII - Format Discussion

Should we have 10 or 12 tiers?

  • 10

    Votes: 34 43.6%

  • 12

    Votes: 44 56.4%
  • Total voters
    78
  • Poll closed .
AtlasNeo

AtlasNeo

Hello everyone! The twelfth iteration of BLT is almost upon us, as such, we believe now is a good time to officially begin the discussion about the format of this years edition - as well as starting our manager signups soon, with Cycle One starting on April 1st!



Points of discussion from BLT XI that may wish to be revisited are:
1. The format of the tournament - Typical format is 2x OU, 1x Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, Monotype. We've taken into consideration the popularity of National Dex from last year - would this format be desired to be included, and which format could it replace?

2. Points for qualifying - BLT XI's point cutoff was 20 points - do we feel that this is an appropriate point cutoff? Should this be adjusted?

3. Qualifying Cycles - Qualifying was shortened to two cycles with the top 16 from each in the guaranteed pool. Was this a good change? Does this need to be adjusted at all?

4. Starting Date - As of right now, we intend to start BLT on April 1st, hold the auction on May 3rd, and begin Week 1 on May 5th; however, we can start earlier if managers are decided during the first qualifying cycle. Is this schedule sufficient?

5. A discussion point was raised amongst the Tournaments Room Auth - Should every player drafted into a team be required to play one game before playoffs? Managers are responsible entirely for their team, and as a result, would be held responsible alone if this condition wasn't met.

6. Other - Any other points of discussion that you feel are important.



Looking forward to your feedback, especially for point #5. Thanks so much in advance, and we hope you look forward to this iteration of BLT!
 
Honestly format wise I wouldn't be against adding the addition of ND this year, the only issue is it'll end up being 11 slots which is quite strange so I'm here to also throw out the idea of doing OU3x, mostly due to the fact that having an even number of tiers is probably preferred around the whole of smogon.

The 20 points where a good cutoff, some players barely made it and making it more time consuming may decrease the popularity of this tour. And I feel like top 16 and 2 cycles is overall better as the environment becomes more competitive.

I don't dislike the starting date and I'm in no place to fight it, but I do think this is a pretty solid time slot if manager signups come up mid march.

I'm a big fan of every player being forced to play a single game before PO, not only does it give the chance for the top 16 slots to play ( as in some cases without the rules this may not happen ) but it also gives the chance for newer and less known players to shine.

Lastly I want to throw out the idea of only counting official format points this year, as a player could single handedly qual off of a single rands tour + 1v1/2v2 tours. We have BLT formats for a reason so i think we should only count points from them and not set any OMS/old gen formats. I understand this could be an unpopular view of things but I think it rewards a bit more skill and allows managers to pick players based on the formats they've played during the tours qual phase and not just a random guy qualing off of those less to do with BLT formats (while still being super cool formats, not hating i LOVE oms)
 
1. Personally I would rather see Random Battles (bo3 or bo5) included than NatDex, with the second OU being replaced

2. last year was fine

3. last year was fine

4. schedule sounds good

5. I think the „must play“ rule does more damage than good. What would the punishment be? How can you enforce it if a player hasnt played yet, but cant play in the last week due to personal reasons?
I dont have strong feelings about that topic though, either decision will probably be fine
 
Last edited:
1. Don't replace anything to add natdex. If there's enough love for natdex just expand the tour to 12 slots, then add natdex and a 3rd ou slot. I don't remember the size of the pool last year and if there's enough signups to accommodate more playing slots, but if it's doable that's the best route imo.

2. This is fine

3. This is fine

4. This is fine

5. This rule is annoying but it also kinda makes sense within the context of the tour. It would really suck to grind roomtours for 2 weeks to make gpool and not get a single game. Managers will likely just look for the cheapest option and permabench them which would make getting gpool meaningless.

6.
SEROO said:
Lastly I want to throw out the idea of only counting official format points this year, as a player could single handedly qual off of a single rands tour + 1v1/2v2 tours. We have BLT formats for a reason so i think we should only count points from them and not set any OMS/old gen formats. I understand this could be an unpopular view of things but I think it rewards a bit more skill and allows managers to pick players based on the formats they've played during the tours qual phase and not just a random guy qualing off of those less to do with BLT formats (while still being super cool formats, not hating i LOVE oms)
Click to expand...
I'll use this space to respond to this, I think it's a fine idea as long as you're not setting non-BLT format tours at all, rather than still setting them and just not having their points contribute to qualifying. I think that was your suggestion anyways just wanted to highlight how important that point is since a lotta people can only play a couple tours a day, so if they were to log on and only get to play in tours that don't even count toward qualifying that would really suck.
 
1. i would consider adding natdex, and additionally to round out the tournament i would ADD VGC BO3. These tiers are extremely popular and it will not be hard to find players for them.

2. 20 is fine

3. 2 cycles is good

4. id rather start mid march and put up manager sign ups asap but doing it like this is fine too

5. You should only be garanteed to play a game if you are in the garanteed pool
 
It looks like it's not unreasonable to go up to 12 tiers, I'd have to double-check last year's number of participants tho.
However, increasing the number of tiers may involve a number of other changes, such as the two pools (guaranteed or not), the rule to have all players take part before the playoffs etc...
 
1. Last year I argued against 12 slots for BLT because the way cycles and officials are formatted would mean people who only really qualify through their preferred official tier would have a harder time with 11/12 formats (some formats would automatically get 2 instead of 3 throughout the month), and I'm going to argue that again. Tier popularity notwithstanding NatDex has made its position clear where it stands in the SV metagame by not aligning with this decision and I believe it has no place in BLT, a tour which has historically only been the current gen, as a result. NatDex is trying to cement itself as something different than the current gen, so let them do that. Bo3/5 Rands over an OU slot would be fine, however I think the current format is better mostly because Rands is only more popular than OU on the ladder, Smogon tours are much more geared towards OU than Rands and this should reflect that.

2. This is good

3. This is good

4. The earlier the better

5. Every manager should be heavily inclined to play their players at least once, sure, but there should not be a punishment for it. Realistically people draft people for more than just their play. Whether it's teambuilding, synergy with a player already on the team, just good vibes/friendship, or people might just not feel comfortable playing, people get drafted for all reasons. Additionally, teams shouldn't have to weaken themselves just because a player is only good in 1/2 formats, especially egregious if the main players slotted in those formats are performing well and have to ride the bench for a week just so the other people can play something they're comfortable with. It leads to a lot of lose/lose scenarios.
 
AtlasNeo said:
Hello everyone! The twelfth iteration of BLT is almost upon us, as such, we believe now is a good time to officially begin the discussion about the format of this years edition - as well as starting our manager signups soon, with Cycle One starting on April 1st!



Points of discussion from BLT XI that may wish to be revisited are:
1. The format of the tournament - Typical format is 2x OU, 1x Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, Monotype. We've taken into consideration the popularity of National Dex from last year - would this format be desired to be included, and which format could it replace?

2. Points for qualifying - BLT XI's point cutoff was 20 points - do we feel that this is an appropriate point cutoff? Should this be adjusted?

3. Qualifying Cycles - Qualifying was shortened to two cycles with the top 16 from each in the guaranteed pool. Was this a good change? Does this need to be adjusted at all?

4. Starting Date - As of right now, we intend to start BLT on April 1st, hold the auction on May 3rd, and begin Week 1 on May 5th; however, we can start earlier if managers are decided during the first qualifying cycle. Is this schedule sufficient?

5. A discussion point was raised amongst the Tournaments Room Auth - Should every player drafted into a team be required to play one game before playoffs? Managers are responsible entirely for their team, and as a result, would be held responsible alone if this condition wasn't met.

6. Other - Any other points of discussion that you feel are important.



Looking forward to your feedback, especially for point #5. Thanks so much in advance, and we hope you look forward to this iteration of BLT!
Click to expand...
1. I don't hate the idea of adding natdex if the demand is high enough however I wouldn't add another ou slot 2 is enough already we don't need a third now I'm obviously biased as I love rands however folks have pushed for a rands slot for a long time and that would bring another large community into the fold which would be great for the tour I think that would be a better choice than a third ou.

2. this is fine

3. this is fine

4. this is fine but starting mid march like last year wouldn't be a bad choice since we'd still have 2 weeks for manger signups.

5. I think this is fine though I'd move to change it just a tad have all players play before the last week of regular season so as to avoid any sub shenanigans while idt intentional it does happen where someone who hasn't played all year is slotted in final week and then subbed out.

6. nothing at this time
 
Despite my opinion not quite being as professional, here..
1. I would he fine with adding natdex and another OU or rands- but BLT has historically been current gen, and imo maybe have a poll or weigh up public opinion on adding natdex into the format?

2. Fine

3. Fine

4. This is fine, but similar to wesh I'd rather start a bit sooner in mid March and have 2-3 weeks for manager signups.

5. Imo everyone should have to play atleast one game before playoffs so there is actually a point to being drafted. I think it's plausible to let gpool have to play atleast 2 games, but understandably this can be harsh on managers for reasons stated by many

6. Don't add VGC... ever.
 
drizzle said:
Tier popularity notwithstanding NatDex has made its position clear where it stands in the SV metagame by not aligning with this decision and I believe it has no place in BLT, a tour which has historically only been the current gen, as a result. NatDex is trying to cement itself as something different than the current gen, so let them do that.
Click to expand...
irrelevant to if NatDex is a good fit for this tour, I don't think it's fair to the tier to be referencing a decision made AFTER NatDex banned Tera as evidence that it shouldn't be in the tour. Barring a tier for more "political" reasons instead of practical / logistical reasons (such as 12 slots not being a good idea or the tier isn't balanced) is also strange to me. If we want current gen tiers exclusively, define what a current gen is because I don't understand how something like NatDex is excluded but Randbats isn't in your eyes when they are both Gen 9 tiers.
 
Last edited:
NDex would be fine, but there is a legitimate concern about not having enough players (or having enough players, but having a noticeable drop in starters quality) for the increased number of slots, so I think it'd be better to replace something. drizzle's point about each tier having less official tours throughout the month is also valid. If we do change to 12, NDex + 3rd OU would be the better choice (or BSS if people don't want more OU, since we already had it in the past and it was fine).
Starting 1st qualifying cycle mid March with managers sign-up going up as early as possible is also better imo.
The rule about everyone playing at least once is too strict, in past BLTs I saw many players that where happy only providing support, and even some that explicitly didn't want to play at all, so for these people the rule would just be harmful. Limiting it to just guaranteed pool is more reasonable.

The other stuff (number of cycles/points) is fine
 
Last edited:
Ninja said:
NDex would be fine, but there is a legitimate concern about not having enough players (or having enough players, but having a noticeable drop in starters quality) for the increased number of slots, so I think it'd be better to replace something. drizzle's point about each tier having less official tours throughout the month is also valid. If we do change to 12, NDex + 3rd OU would be the better choice (or BSS if people don't want more OU, since we already had it in the past and it was fine).
Starting 1st qualifying cycle mid March with managers sign-up going up as early as possible is also better imo.
The rule about everyone playing at least once is too strict, in past BLTs I saw many players that where happy only providing support, and even some that explicitly didn't want to play at all, so for these people the rule would just be harmful. Limiting it to just guaranteed pool is more ressonable.

The other stuff (number of cycles/points) is fine
Click to expand...
I don't think adding 2 more tiers would necessarily lower the quality of the starters. The main goal of introducing new formats is to bring in the communities that play them. And to be honest, even if the starters' quality does drop a bit, as you mentioned, it could actually be a good thing for the room's regs who are more likely to participate in a tournament hosted by a room they frequent on a daily basis, which isn't a bad outcome.

As for the manager sign-ups, I'm responding to most people who have shared their thoughts. It would be best to have everything settled before opening sign-ups—at the very least, we should finalize the number of tiers being played this year.
 
wesh papillon said:
Another idea if we want to favor tours room Mainers:

We could do like lpl and have the 8th team not draft and instead take all the players who are leftover
Click to expand...
This sounds like a bad idea. No official smogon tour does that and for good reason.

I share these opinions
mj said:
1. Personally I would rather see Random Battles (bo3 or bo5) included than NatDex, with the second OU being replaced

2. last year was fine

3. last year was fine

4. schedule sounds good

5. I think the „must play“ rule does more damage than good. What would the punishment be? How can you enforce it if a player hasnt played yet, but cant play in the last week due to personal reasons?
I dont have strong feelings about that topic though, either decision will probably be fine
Click to expand...
 
0. WTF is BLT
1. I am a fan of the normal format without nat dex
2. A higher cutoff of 30 is usually optimal imo
3. no opinion. I prefer the 4 cycles though.
4. Starting on April 1st is too funny so maybe a week later
5. No I dont think so. Its a whole team ya know.
6. WTF is BLT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top