Tournament Doubles Premier League XI Discussion Thread

[Actuarily]

Art by GenOne
​

It's that time already! Welcome everyone to the 11th edition of Doubles Premier League! No team tournament is complete without the arguing for a month before the tournament starts, so this is your place, the discussion thread. Now in order to guide our discussion, we do have a few questions that we want to hear everyone's thoughts on for the tournament.

1. What should the format be?

Last year the format was 8 teams with 8 starters, and the tiers were SV x3, SS, SM, XY, BW, and DUU, should the tournament remain the same? Four teams made playoffs, was that enough?

2. Should we keep tiebreakers?

Every tournament there's some discussion around keeping or eliminating tiebreaks, and this one is no different! Some say tiebreaks slow down the tournament, others feel they add to the hype. Some solutions previously offered have been changing the the format to have an odd number of matchups, or have designated tiebreaker slots, or even changing the number of slots in the playoffs to prevent tiebreaks.

3. Should retains be allowed? If so how? How about manager self-buys

Retains we recently allowed in Doubles Derby, how did we feel about them? Some feel that they reward good drafting and improve team cohesion, while others think they aren't necessary. Should they be added to DPL? Manager self buys have historically been a part of DPL, but only one of the two managers have been able to self-buy. We expect if we include both self-buys & retains, that teams would either be allowed to do either 2 retains, or 1 retain and 1 self buy, but these things are always up for discussion!

Secondly, we'd like to hear feedback on the retain & self buy formulas. Some recommended formulas below, but of course these are up for discussion as well

Retains formula:

Last year price+3k OR 10k, whichever one is higher

Self buy formula:

 ((max(10,000, last auction price OR self-buy price) + 10,000 + (1,500 * all wins last DPL))/2) rounded up to the nearest .5K
For EXAMPLE:
If a manager was self-bought last year for 15,000, and won 4 games, then their price would be (15,000 + 10,000 + 6,000)/2= 15,500.
OR if a manager was drafted last year for 6,000 and won 5 games, then their price would be (10,000 + 10,000 + 7,500)/2 = 13,750, rounded up to 14,000.

4. Is there anything else you would like to be brought up and discussed?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[zee]

DPL format is perfect as is. Really excited to see some high level play from all of these tiers. NatDex has grown quite a sizeable fanbase but as others have pointed out on discord, there are several opportunities to play NatDex in a team tour across the site. I will forever complain about tiebreaks killing momentum but they're kind of required in a PL that has multiple tiers.

Keep manager self-buys and add retains to the tour. They worked out fine in derby (humblebrag but the winning team didn't even opt for retains) and having continuous franchises and franchise players for the most important team tour is hype. I like the current 1 manager self-buy max. While you can never really guarantee that a self-buy is also active in the manager role, I think you'd see a lot more blurring of the line if you allowed two self-buys.

 

[Yoda2798]

I think the format is great as is and that tiebreakers are still a necessary evil, the same points apply from previous discussions and there's not even a consensus alternative since each possible option has its own flaws.

As someone historically against retains, I think they were a successful addition to Derby and should be added to DPL in a similar fashion. There are only a limited amount that can happen so it doesn't detract too much from the draft, but helps add a healthy amount of continuity in teams between editions, and helps with planning draft strategies which is nice with so many tiers/slots.

 

[sir jelloton]

Remove 1 sv for a sv bo3 teamlock slot. I want more gaming.

 

[grayblood]

I have a interest in managing this year, if any more experienced managers would be interested in co-managing with me shoot me a dm on smogon or on discord and we can discuss.

 

[xqiht]

agree jello, i think we can try sv bo3 or sv ss sm bo3, i think it will be fun.
(it is just a retire player idea LOL)

 

[mimi]

Retains are good, I support these 100% of the time even as a manager who did not use any during derby.

Tiebreakers are a necessary demon

DPL is a perfect format I would not change. Natdex gets enough throughout other tournaments, teamlock is a big meh for me but if there was enough people wanting it, considering it over one of the sv slots could be explored.

 

[Smudge]

I don't know if I agree with "NatDex gets enough tournaments" to be the reason it shouldn't be in DPL.

I'd say the better reason for that is it doesn't match what I consider to be the identity of the tournament, which is all of the DOU formats which were official tiers during current generation, plus DUU as it's been there since the inception of the tournament format. Though admittedly I am very happy with the tournaments NDDOU has as it is, our premier tournaments are Derby and NDPL and that's just fine.

Either way, don't change what tiers are in the tour, retains/selfbuys are alright, tiebreaks fine etc. That said, if there was enough support for a (non-teamlocked) BO3 slot, I wouldn't actually mind that.

I specifically do not want to see double manager self-buys, though.

 

[eragon]

Add some form of a bo3 slot. Here's why.​

Generally agree with what has been said above. Considering this is the third iteration of the tour this generation, it makes sense to keep the format the same or at the very least every slot in the tour should stay. Retains worked very well in derby with the rules that were used and honestly if I had to guess they probably just function even better here given the nature of the tour (although that's just off vibes). 1 manager self buy is just a necessary evil imo, this community is just really going to struggle to pull in 8 quality manager pairings otherwise but a 2nd one just isn't needed in the same way and could create some dumb situations.

However, while not vital to the success of the tour, I do think eliminating tiebreaks is still preferable. The tour would really run much smoother without them for reasons that get brought up every year regarding momentum/length of tours. As has been noted by a few people above, cutting or adding a format for playoffs is just too troll in a format like this one with a variety of tiers. That leaves two options: 7 slots for the whole tour or 9 slots for the whole tour. 7 slots shouldn't be on the table, the only slot that would be reasonable to cut would be sv as it has 3 slots, but as someone who's managed this tour one and a half times that sounds awful (sv is the easiest tier to draft for and having 3 slots really helps balance some of the issues with drafting for the 4 oldgens). As such, I personally think 9 slots is preferable. I think I've suggested this in like the last 5 tours but this is definitely the tour where it is most feasible. I don't really remember what the main argument against this was last dpl (the issue for dwcop is basically pools math while for derby the number of signups can be even more of a prohibitive factor) but the main things with this are probably 1) playerbase size and 2) deciding what the slot would even be.

Question 1 is definitely somewhat real but I think it is very workable (especially depending on what the tier actually is, but more on that in a bit). Last year we had 150 signups and 83 players and two years ago we had 168 signups and 88 players draft. In both cases I think an extra slot/player each team is some reasonable and we would probably end up with somewhere around 90-95 players drafted, which would put it in the company of the second derby, which had 91 players. There were definitely a few issues with one or two teams with the size of that tour but honestly that's not that many, and the total number of signups for that tour was much less than what any DPL in the big 2025 would hit (like 120). Basically I think the playerbase size is enough that we wouldn't have to worry about decreasing the quality of the tour here imo.

Question 2 is like the only reason I was motivated to make this post:

agree jello, i think we can try sv bo3 or sv ss sm bo3, i think it will be fun.
(it is just a retire player idea LOL)

Remove 1 sv for a sv bo3 teamlock slot. I want more gaming.

Like lowkey a best of three slot would be kinda fire right? I don't really feel strongly as to what the format would be, the most entertaining to me would be like an oldgens bo3 with ss/sm/xy similarly to classic (to me these are the most entertaining tiers every dpl and all three have solid playerbases as well as a fair amount of newer players who I'm sure would be willing to pick up the slack in the other slots). However, I think if you're concerned about playerbase size an SV bo3 slot (teamlock or not it really doesn't matter in this context but probably just a normal bo3) would be the easiest for managers to draft for and shouldn't put much of a strain on the pool- there are way more than enough players capable of playing sv dou-- see DWCOP being the only full cg tour always getting way more signups than DPL. I digress but to me this is like the ideal solution as you get to at least try to fix the complaints about tiebreaks and add a fresh and entertaining slot to the tour. I'm not super tapped in to the other PLs on the site but I know at least some of them have a bo3 slot and it tends to function fine to my knowledge. Also maybe natdex or like DLC could work as a ninth slot and you'd also have minimal trouble filling those slots considering adding either one will bring in more signups but it is true that both of those tiers are fairly different identity wise from the other 8 slots so also don't feel strongly there either. Bo3 just makes the most sense logistically I think.

TLDR: I'm proposing 9 slots with
SV
SV
SV
SV bo3 or SS/SM/XY bo3
SS
SM
XY
BW
DUU

For gen 10

Less important now but if playerbase size is the main issue for moving to 9 slots now, we really should consider it for gen 10-- we'll probably see at least some uptick in signups for at least the first DPL of the gen and I think it would work really well then. I've seen some discussion about cutting DUU next gen once there's also SV as an oldgen but like why? It should be very easy to just do the above format but with the bo3 slot replaced with oldgen SV, leaving us with 9 slots and keeping DUU in the tour, which has generally been a very positive presence in each of the teamtours this gen, has an active playerbase, and has had generally good tiering. If we do keep it at 8 slots please just remove BW and move it to derby, it fits better with DPP/ADV anyways and there are like. a billion issues with that tier. Didn't want to discuss it here because cutting it in the third DPL of the gen would just be lame but DUU has literally had more tiering action in the last year than BW in the entirety of its existence and it shows. If the argument is between cutting DUU and cutting BW next generation, DUU is a strictly more competitive format and should not be cut. Not even a DUU fan here really but I just really don't want to see it cut next gen so felt like saying something.

 

[Magic Mayhem Maiden]

As a tournament follower, odd number of slots (in the regular season) is a bad idea.

Ties are actually good for the overall tournament in the regular season. Without them, each team will only be able to win or lose a week, which means there are less variance in the overall team scores, and it's more likely to lead into a Playoffs tiebreaker instead.

And for each series, having a tie means that each individual game has more of a chance to make a difference in the final score. I think there would be more deadgames without the opportunity of playing for a tie week.

 

[sir jelloton]

Add some form of a bo3 slot. Here's why.​

Generally agree with what has been said above. Considering this is the third iteration of the tour this generation, it makes sense to keep the format the same or at the very least every slot in the tour should stay. Retains worked very well in derby with the rules that were used and honestly if I had to guess they probably just function even better here given the nature of the tour (although that's just off vibes). 1 manager self buy is just a necessary evil imo, this community is just really going to struggle to pull in 8 quality manager pairings otherwise but a 2nd one just isn't needed in the same way and could create some dumb situations.

However, while not vital to the success of the tour, I do think eliminating tiebreaks is still preferable. The tour would really run much smoother without them for reasons that get brought up every year regarding momentum/length of tours. As has been noted by a few people above, cutting or adding a format for playoffs is just too troll in a format like this one with a variety of tiers. That leaves two options: 7 slots for the whole tour or 9 slots for the whole tour. 7 slots shouldn't be on the table, the only slot that would be reasonable to cut would be sv as it has 3 slots, but as someone who's managed this tour one and a half times that sounds awful (sv is the easiest tier to draft for and having 3 slots really helps balance some of the issues with drafting for the 4 oldgens). As such, I personally think 9 slots is preferable. I think I've suggested this in like the last 5 tours but this is definitely the tour where it is most feasible. I don't really remember what the main argument against this was last dpl (the issue for dwcop is basically pools math while for derby the number of signups can be even more of a prohibitive factor) but the main things with this are probably 1) playerbase size and 2) deciding what the slot would even be.

Question 1 is definitely somewhat real but I think it is very workable (especially depending on what the tier actually is, but more on that in a bit). Last year we had 150 signups and 83 players and two years ago we had 168 signups and 88 players draft. In both cases I think an extra slot/player each team is some reasonable and we would probably end up with somewhere around 90-95 players drafted, which would put it in the company of the second derby, which had 91 players. There were definitely a few issues with one or two teams with the size of that tour but honestly that's not that many, and the total number of signups for that tour was much less than what any DPL in the big 2025 would hit (like 120). Basically I think the playerbase size is enough that we wouldn't have to worry about decreasing the quality of the tour here imo.

Question 2 is like the only reason I was motivated to make this post:


Like lowkey a best of three slot would be kinda fire right? I don't really feel strongly as to what the format would be, the most entertaining to me would be like an oldgens bo3 with ss/sm/xy similarly to classic (to me these are the most entertaining tiers every dpl and all three have solid playerbases as well as a fair amount of newer players who I'm sure would be willing to pick up the slack in the other slots). However, I think if you're concerned about playerbase size an SV bo3 slot (teamlock or not it really doesn't matter in this context but probably just a normal bo3) would be the easiest for managers to draft for and shouldn't put much of a strain on the pool- there are way more than enough players capable of playing sv dou-- see DWCOP being the only full cg tour always getting way more signups than DPL. I digress but to me this is like the ideal solution as you get to at least try to fix the complaints about tiebreaks and add a fresh and entertaining slot to the tour. I'm not super tapped in to the other PLs on the site but I know at least some of them have a bo3 slot and it tends to function fine to my knowledge. Also maybe natdex or like DLC could work as a ninth slot and you'd also have minimal trouble filling those slots considering adding either one will bring in more signups but it is true that both of those tiers are fairly different identity wise from the other 8 slots so also don't feel strongly there either. Bo3 just makes the most sense logistically I think.

TLDR: I'm proposing 9 slots with
SV
SV
SV
SV bo3 or SS/SM/XY bo3
SS
SM
XY
BW
DUU

For gen 10

Less important now but if playerbase size is the main issue for moving to 9 slots now, we really should consider it for gen 10-- we'll probably see at least some uptick in signups for at least the first DPL of the gen and I think it would work really well then. I've seen some discussion about cutting DUU next gen once there's also SV as an oldgen but like why? It should be very easy to just do the above format but with the bo3 slot replaced with oldgen SV, leaving us with 9 slots and keeping DUU in the tour, which has generally been a very positive presence in each of the teamtours this gen, has an active playerbase, and has had generally good tiering. If we do keep it at 8 slots please just remove BW and move it to derby, it fits better with DPP/ADV anyways and there are like. a billion issues with that tier. Didn't want to discuss it here because cutting it in the third DPL of the gen would just be lame but DUU has literally had more tiering action in the last year than BW in the entirety of its existence and it shows. If the argument is between cutting DUU and cutting BW next generation, DUU is a strictly more competitive format and should not be cut. Not even a DUU fan here really but I just really don't want to see it cut next gen so felt like saying something.

classic bo3 slot would be amazing what a suggestion.

 

[Actuarily]

After discussing with the hosting team, we’re keeping everything as relatively expected. Thank you to everyone who posted and weighed in.

The format will be 8 teams with 8 tiers, with the tiers being SV x3, SS, SM, XY, BW, and DUU.

Tiebreakers will be kept in the tournament.

Retains & self-buys will be allowed, which each team allowed either 1 self-buy & 1 retain, or 2 retains.

Manager sign-ups will follow shortly!