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

BLT XIII- Format Discussion

Vapour

Vapour

Hello everyone! As BLT XIII draws near, we've decided now is a good time to gauge public opinion on this year's edition.

Main points of interest from BLT XII:

1. Start Date- We currently plan to start cycle 1 of qualifying on March 1st, and cycle 2 on March 16th, however this is subject to change if there's support.

2. Format- Last year expanded to 12 slots, with the inclusion of Natdex and Rands bo3. Should we keep this the same, or revert back to 10 slots?

3. Manager trios- The possibility for 3 managers per team was mentioned in the BLT XII feedback form, and we're intrigued to hear thoughts on this- if we go through with it, should only 1 or 2 be allowed to selfbuy?

4. Guaranteed pool size (16 or 20 per cycle) This will probably depend on the size of starting slots, however we made the changed to the top 20 being gpool slots per cycle (40 total) last year, how was this taken by managers? Should this be reverted to top 16 per cycle (32 total)?

5. Tier lock- Should tier lock be introduced this year? This could work as a binding list of tiers not played, and should it stay in effect for tiebreaks if accepted?

6. Other- Please voice any other concerns or propositions here, everything will be taken into account!

Your hosts this year will be myself and Sificon, so please come to us primarily if you have any concerns, and happy BLT season!
 
1. Do not care
2. Revert back to 10. Rands was not a good inclusion, added an extra layer of variability and made drafting more cumbersome as a lot of good tier players just wanted to play rands. Natdex was fine but doesn't feel all that necessary to keep either. If anything I'd say if you wanna keep 12 slots then do natdex + a third ou slot, ou is the most accessible tier and if the aim is to give more tour regs a chance this would be the best opportunity for them. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with just doing 10 slots.
3. Make it 3 managers. One of the primary reasons for having 3 managers is for tours where there is a wide array of tiers that you can't possibly cover between 2 managers. This tour mimics the same structure as SCL which has 3 managers, so I don't see why we wouldn't do it here. You hardly ever lose anything by allowing 3 managers, the one caveat is to keep it so that only one manager can self-buy cause we don't wanna see some teams pick up a third coman just to get them as a cheaper player.
4. Revert back to top 16, top 20 was frankly just too easy it created very little suspense during the qual phase cause there weren't even that many people who were seriously trying. It also made the tour way too lopsided toward gpool, I know gpool is a defining trait of this tour but it shouldn't completely dictate the entirety of the tour.
5. PLEASE introduce tier lock this one is a no brainer, literally zero drawback and it's an added layer against pricefixing attempts which we see every year. Just have it function the same way it does in officials regarding tiebreaks.
 
  1. March 1st is fine, the earlier the tour starts the better;
  2. Either revert to 10 slots or do 12 slots with +ND and +OU3 or Masters bo3, whatever you do please do NOT include Random Battles, 10 slots has worked best for years. Would also be fine with 12 slots being 10+ND+Draft or 10 slots with ND over Monotype;
  3. Basically every tournament has trios, I see no reason to not allow trios in BLT as well, echoing what Fragmnents said although it's fine if the managers don't cover all slots, but you can make it happen it's always good for the players and for the spirit of tour. Moreover, 3 managers allows for more flexibility on the managers' side and reduces pressure/workload on them. 1 selfbuy/team of course, we don't need 2 broken managers for super cheap and allow the 3rd manager to be a cheaper player;
  4. To be honest it's kinda whatever, I'd rather go with Top16, there are few people in gpool who see playing time anyway;
  5. Tierlock for regular season, but not for playoffs. If someone wants to tierlock themselves out of a tier during regular season, but be open to playing in in poffs should be allowed.
  6. TLDR: BLT XI + 3 Managers + Tier lock is the move
 
Last edited:
Fragments said:
1. Do not care
2. Revert back to 10. Rands was not a good inclusion, added an extra layer of variability and made drafting more cumbersome as a lot of good tier players just wanted to play rands. Natdex was fine but doesn't feel all that necessary to keep either. If anything I'd say if you wanna keep 12 slots then do natdex + a third ou slot, ou is the most accessible tier and if the aim is to give more tour regs a chance this would be the best opportunity for them. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with just doing 10 slots.
3. Make it 3 managers. One of the primary reasons for having 3 managers is for tours where there is a wide array of tiers that you can't possibly cover between 2 managers. This tour mimics the same structure as SCL which has 3 managers, so I don't see why we wouldn't do it here. You hardly ever lose anything by allowing 3 managers, the one caveat is to keep it so that only one manager can self-buy cause we don't wanna see some teams pick up a third coman just to get them as a cheaper player.
4. Revert back to top 16, top 20 was frankly just too easy it created very little suspense during the qual phase cause there weren't even that many people who were seriously trying. It also made the tour way too lopsided toward gpool, I know gpool is a defining trait of this tour but it shouldn't completely dictate the entirety of the tour.
5. PLEASE introduce tier lock this one is a no brainer, literally zero drawback and it's an added layer against pricefixing attempts which we see every year. Just have it function the same way it does in officials regarding tiebreaks.
Click to expand...
I support everything this guy said, regarding the second point, SVOU 3 instead of randbats as frixel said, that sounds much better than just removing two slots, I think the ND slots were quite competitive and fun last season
 
1. Start asap
2. I like 12 slots but we should remove rands + natdex and replace with whatever other tier ppl want.
3. 3 managers is better
4. 16 is better then 20 but honestly i think 12 might be better since after the first 5 days or so the quality of games kinda drops of a cliff and this would mean that the players that make the cut would be more competitive or at least determined. Dont think this would have many downsides and should also mean less people in the gpool get banned like what happened last year.
5. im not familiar enough with the whole price fixing thing to say but i trust fragments opinion on this
 
1. earlier we wanna play
2. back to 10, mini scl + monotype (if it were up to me we'd be rid of it but I can't deny the popularity) is fun and rands/natdex feels very out of place
3. 3 managers + 1 self buy with the ranges of tiers feels right and setting 1 self buy stops people from abusing it.
4. 16 is fine especially if we're going back to 10 slots
5. please please pleaseeeeee a lot of players want to try out different metas then what they usually play in this and having tier locks prevents managers from overpaying the hell out of someone who doesn't wanna play their main tier or is pricefixing saying they aren't going to play it.
 
1. time period given seems fine..
2. remove rands, keep natdex, add another sv ou slot or a bo3 of multiple formats
3. 3 managers + 1 selfbuy seems fine imo
4. top 16 if we have 10 formats, top 20 if we have 12
5. idk no thoughts on this here
 
1. March 1st preferably
2. I think 12 slots is good but we should change rands to OU slot 3, and keep natdex as is
3. 3 Managers
4. Im not against 20 but i think 16 strikes a good balance between competitiveness and being accessible for the average tours room player
5. I don't see a reason why not to introduce tier lock (although im not exactly a good player so idt i have enough experience to give a good opinion on this)
 
Tiers
We should get rid of Rands and NatDex. Last year when managing the NatDex pool felt pretty limited during auction and we just randomly ended up slotting rahul into it with him having a strong record. Didn't really feel like the turnout from the NatDex community was very large but if theres more interest for it this year just getting rid of Rands for OU3 is fine.

Selfbuys
3 managers is fine. I like 2 selfbuys but it doesn't really matter

Guaranteed Pool Size
Completely agree with Fragments here.

Tierlock
Add it and follow rule for officials

Fragments smells
 
1. The earlier the better

2. I regrettably agree to get rid of randbats. NatDex I dont have a strong opinion on, but would tend to get rid of it as well. Like Hacker said, the turnout just wasnt there and it ended up being a tier that most didnt really want to play but had to be slotted in.
Personally Im quite open to trying new formats, but one is enough being paired with OU3.
Suggestions for the new format: VGC, BSS, ZU

Would also be fine with reverting back to 10 slots though

3. Strong yes to 3 Managers, hesitant yes to 2 self buys

4. revert back to 16 guaranteed slots

5. 100% yes to tier locks with the official tours as reference
 
It was casually mentioned before but I would like to more officially put draft on the table, it's community and viability are so deep rn that it was considered for SCL last year. Would like to hear what everyone thinks but going to tag Hacker and trace for their thoughts in particular given their involvement in both the draft and tours room communities, I think you guys would have the most valuable insight into how viable draft would be here.
 
Fragments said:
It was casually mentioned before but I would like to more officially put draft on the table, it's community and viability are so deep rn that it was considered for SCL last year. Would like to hear what everyone thinks but going to tag Hacker and trace for their thoughts in particular given their involvement in both the draft and tours room communities, I think you guys would have the most valuable insight into how viable draft would be here.
Click to expand...
I love draft and would be happy to support it if not for the simple fact that it'd be odd to have the format in the tournament despite draft is not a possible format that you can play on the tours room
 
Frixel said:
Either revert to 10 slots or do 12 slots with +ND and +OU3 or Masters bo3, whatever you do please do NOT include Random Battles, 10 slots has worked best for years. Would also be fine with 12 slots being 10+ND+Draft or 10 slots with ND over Monotype;
Click to expand...
Reing this, proposed BLT format:

10 slots: 2x OU, Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, ND/Draft

12 slots: 3x OU, Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, ND, Draft


Draft has been included in tournaments recently, including PTSL, ORASCL, etc. As per this post, which presents a great argument for draft inclusion in a team tournament:
LogIce said:
Last year, there were some concerns about draft being included in a standard team tour. Since this time last year, there have been some PLs and CLs that have included draft as a format See: PTSL, NDCL, LGPL, and arguments for inclusion for ORASCL (even though they decided against inclusion). These tours allowed one week for drafting teams to take place, and optionally midseason trades introduced during the midpoint of the tour (During a week 3 playing week, active starting week 4) that would be used the following week, used to aide in fixing drafts that may have not performed well. Teams would draft 2 teams, and submit which they are using with their lineup submission each week, which is in line with other draft team tours on and off the site.
Click to expand...


Regarding Monotype's inclusion, I'm not a fan of it. From my experience, it has been the most volatile tier of all the editions I played, having similar issues to the ones Rands felt last year. As great arguments, we have this thread and this post:
Star said:
Monotype does not meet the bar for competitiveness and interactive gameplay that we expect from tiers in our trophy tours today. Obviously tiers do sometimes dip below that bar (last SCL's Ubers metagame, the last SS LC metagame in SCL as examples in my view), but over the course of generations we see this as a consistent problem for Monotype which is not the case for other tiers. That is not the fault of Monotype tiering, but we see it as a fundamental issue due to the rules of the tier as described in my other post. Given the history here and the Policy team's own view, we do not see a realistic path forward for Monotype's inclusion in official team tours.
Click to expand...

This post in specific, has a great quote of why Monotype is not a good addition.
Star said:
Given that I've been brought up as an example like 5 times due to having a good mono record, I feel sort of obligated to respond. I've played quite a few mono tours over the past few years and while I've found it enjoyable, I definitely don't think it belongs in SCL. The issue of matchup has been discussed at length, but the counter-arguments have been rather myopic. Monotype being matchup heavy doesn't just mean that you automatically lose if you bring Psychic vs Dark or Flying vs Ice. It's irrefutable that when you have six pokemon of the same fucking type, your weaknesses overlap. The majority of Kev's post is spent listing examples where type matchup itself didn't decide the game. What that fails to capture is that the specific sets chosen often (far too often) do. Just to illustrate this with a few examples from his post:

Kev said:
King Choco vs Sabella [Psychic vs Dark]
Shiba vs Maki [Fairy vs Dark]
(Bo3 series):
Game 1 [Flying vs Dragon]
Game 2 [Ice vs Flying]

Literally every single game here was completely decided on preview. The post (fairly) describes how this was due to good prep, but ignores the actual issue entirely. Good prep in SS OU doesn't result in all 4 finals games being completely unplayable for one side or another. The issue with monotype isn't just the type matchup, but the very limited pool of what's available to each type and what they can use. That's precisely what makes it so easy to win a game on preview with good prep. Just because the type that won wasn't what the type chart predicted, doesn't make the game any less matchup-based.

Shiba vs Fírnen [Electric vs Dragon]
TJ vs Conflux [Dark vs Dragon]
Maki vs Padox [Electric vs Dark]

In this finals we've at least improved to 2/3 (the second and third) games being decided on matchup instead of all of them. Once again the unplayable games are explained away by ill-preparedness and good prep. While that certainly might have been the case, you cannot find 6/7 finals games across 2 major team tours being decided on matchup for literally any other tier that's ever been in an official team tour. Yes, people often find an advantage as a result of preparing well in other tiers, but the innate nature of 6 shared types and limited diversity exacerbates the issue.

tl;dr here is once again, neither of the games are the product of random pokemon/matchup losses. The team got complacent and reused teams and didn't take the effort to properly prepare for their games.

This tl;dr is what annoyed me the most. Arguing that monotype isn't random is missing the point entirely. It's not random and it certainly rewards good prep. The issue is that winning in the builder happens far too often either due to type advantage or sets that win by themselves as seen in 6/7 finals games.

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1257241091 (Grass vs Flying)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen8monotype-533996 (Dragon vs Fairy)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1268287697-jolr64xwzcx62rgx9826ev2r6iplxmbpw (Dark vs Fairy)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1149818797 (Electric vs Water with no immunity)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen8monotype-511516 (Fire vs Bug)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1265342938 (Ice vs Water, good for Ice in theory because of Freeze Dry being common)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1262436038 (Flying vs Ice)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1300720266 (Flying vs Ice)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1254926638 (Fire vs Ice)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1255106695 (Ice vs Grass)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1145053197 (Fire vs Water)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1255250960 (Ground vs Steel)
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8monotype-1275552925 (Grass vs Water)

I definitely don't want to get into the details of this section and keep repeating myself but yeah, type matchup is only the tip of the iceberg as far as monotype being matchup heavy.
Click to expand...

To summarize/reiterate my point, monotype being matchup-based doesn't simply mean the type chart. Monotype inherently has a very shallow pool of mons to use and because of that, has limited ways to deal with particular threats. That obviously leads to encountering unwinnable matchups far more often than you would in any other tier, as evidenced by the two most recent team tour finals.
Click to expand...


TL,DR:
  • Monotype should go;
  • 10 slots: -Mono, +(ND > Draft);
  • 12 slots: -Mono, +ND, +Draft, +OU3.
 
Last edited:
2. remove rands
3. 3 managers, theres no drawbacks. Limit selfbuys
5. +1 to tierlocks, again, no drawbacks and gives more transparency to all parties
6. keep same qualifying points than last year for non guaranteed pool
 
Fragments said:
It was casually mentioned before but I would like to more officially put draft on the table, it's community and viability are so deep rn that it was considered for SCL last year. Would like to hear what everyone thinks but going to tag Hacker and trace for their thoughts in particular given their involvement in both the draft and tours room communities, I think you guys would have the most valuable insight into how viable draft would be here.
Click to expand...
Basically what trace said. It passes all of the metrics to be included in team tours but it doesn’t cater to tours room mains bc you can’t play it there. So it would feel like a bit of a weird addition to begin with even if it would functionally be fine. If that’s not a concern I hold no objections though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top