Tournaments DPPPL V Format Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
16bit

16bit

What does your soul look like?
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Hi, DPPPL is going to start in about 3 weeks, so I wanted to give people the opportunity to give feedback before manager and player signups go up.

Last year was an 8 team, 10 slot tour. This is overwhelmingly likely to be the same going into this year, unless a large and aligned dissent is agreed upon.

Slots were as such:
DPP OU BO3
DPP OU BO1 x2
DPP Ubers
DPP Ubers (Farceus)
DPP UU x2
DPP NU
DPP PU
DPP LC

I'm mainly looking to see the opinions on Ubers Farceus slot and whether it should stay the same or become a regular Ubers - I don't know how the Ubers community feels about it right now and heard some complaints about it being brought back last year, so if anyone could clarify if there is still demand for that or not that'd be great. Otherwise feel free to post ideas of any changes to the tournament, or if you are content with the status quo.
 
As for me personally, I think we should definitely keep the BO3 OU slot - it was a success in terms of getting a high quality pool, and notable players like Jirachee said they were only interested in playing the BO3 slot and not the BO1 slot. I would definitely not like to see it removed, so if a suspect slot were to happen, I would prefer it to be over one of the two BO1 OU slots or over one of the UU / Ubers slot.
 
Hi, as a hopeful returning manager, I'd not recommend Farceus. The signup pool was very limiting, and it was difficult to draft qualified players for the slot. IIRC, less than 20 users indicated a desire to play Farceus, and that's before cutting out non-starter-viable names. awyp and I during the auction were talking about a "Farceus tax" of users who were signed up to play Farceus going for higher values than expected as a result of the limited pool. Additionally, during the tournament, our Ubers players/spectators/builders frequently seemed disappointed by the limited options in the metagame, calling it somewhat limiting. It seems like an interesting tier, but having there be a divide between the Ubers slots felt not great.

I don't think I have particularly strong opinions about changing other slots. No-Jirachi seems a bit whatever, though bo3+1ou+1nojira seems like a strange lineup for the OU slots.
 
16bit said:
As for me personally, I think we should definitely keep the BO3 OU slot - it was a success in terms of getting a high quality pool, and notable players like Jirachee said they were only interested in playing the BO3 slot and not the BO1 slot. I would definitely not like to see it removed, so if a suspect slot were to happen, I would prefer it to be over one of the two BO1 OU slots or over one of the UU / Ubers slot.
Click to expand...

I second this; I had lots of fun with Bo3 DPP last year and I think maintaining it is a no-brainer.

I'm not so sure about a suspect slot; I feel a separate tournament for it makes more sense, as more players will have a chance to explore that meta and form an opinion for themselves.
 
DPPLC is seeing a huge rise in interest as a tier which is very clear to see by the amount of LC team tour mainstays picking up the tier. Over the past two LC team tours LCPL and LCBC we have seen the tier dominated by newcomers, and an overall rise of quality in the tier to the point where new innovations and metagame development are at a high we haven't seen in years. There are enough quality starters to fill the pool more than twice over now, and so it is not unreasonable for the tier to receive the two slot treatment that UU and Ubers receive given how close and competitive the tier is currently at the top level.
 
Posting in support of Bo3. Last year was the most fun I had playing mons in a long time. Just made for a better tournament. I know many DPP players feel strongly about Bo3 as well.

If there's a suspect slot, just can Iron Head. Let's see what Jirachi can do without it... and put some data behind the speculation.
 
Suspect slots in team tours are pretty bad. They never really actually reflect what the meta would be like or help give people an actual idea on if an element being in or out of the tier is better. I think Farceus shouldn't be in this tournament if its not the primary DPP format that UPL uses, since its not really catering to any playerbase in particular. A 4th OU or 2nd Ubers slot would both be fine.

Alternatively, you could do like a rotating slot every week. One week its BO3 OU, next its BO1 OU, next its Ubers, etc. It would work since theres just enough different formats here. That is probably just going through too much hassle when you could just do a second Ubers slot to begin with though.
 
Is there even a point in having a non-rachi ou slot? As far as I know, ban of iron head when rachi is the only problematic abuser is way less likely than a ban of a rachi itself due to smogon policy stating that for a ban of a move there has to be more than one problematic abuser of it. Though a slot for banned rachi/ iron head on rachi ou in general sounds like a weird tier to draft players for, since there are no clear good players for them and when effectivness of this method as a way to test things is unclear, maybe, a separate tour for banned rachi/iron head on rachi would be better. Sorry if I got something very wrong in advance
 
Keep the format as is unless ubers / farceus players agree that they'd rather have 2 ubers and remove farceus (i doubt this happens)

bo3 is great and had a strong playerbase last year

suspect slots are bad - you're making a temp metagame that a select few may wanna play and the rest of the pool will probably be people who get thrown in because there is no one else. Also segregates that slot to a degree
 
a fairy said:
Hi, as a hopeful returning manager, I'd not recommend Farceus. The signup pool was very limiting, and it was difficult to draft qualified players for the slot. IIRC, less than 20 users indicated a desire to play Farceus, and that's before cutting out non-starter-viable names. awyp and I during the auction were talking about a "Farceus tax" of users who were signed up to play Farceus going for higher values than expected as a result of the limited pool. Additionally, during the tournament, our Ubers players/spectators/builders frequently seemed disappointed by the limited options in the metagame, calling it somewhat limiting. It seems like an interesting tier, but having there be a divide between the Ubers slots felt not great.

I don't think I have particularly strong opinions about changing other slots. No-Jirachi seems a bit whatever, though bo3+1ou+1nojira seems like a strange lineup for the OU slots.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything a fairy is saying for the most part. Farceus shouldn’t be a repeat slot based off the interest from the overall pool last year. You can go for the simple double Ubers slot which is great since DPP Ubers draws a lot of interest from the player base and unbiasedly one of the greatest metas of all time. Or maybe another Bo3 slot with DPP classic (OU, UU, Ubers), which I can get totally behind.

In terms of Bo3 OU definitely keep it; there was some great performances last year and a lot of competitive spirit with higher level players only wanting to play that slot over the Bo1.
 
I don't like suspect test slots personally, supporting the bo3 slot again and as for everything else I don't have any strong opinions as I don't really play these tiers, so I'll just listen to other peoples thoughts regarding them.

My only question is should we just make all the OU slots Bo3? Genuinely curious what people think because last year there seemed to be a preference for the Bo3 slot among a good amount of the DPP playerbase so I'm wondering if enough people just want it to be the default. Or if we want to compromise maybe 2 Bo3 slots and 1 Bo1 slot could work too? Please let it be known what you think.
 
Felt obligated to post after reading this,

a fairy said:
Hi, as a hopeful returning manager, I'd not recommend Farceus. The signup pool was very limiting, and it was difficult to draft qualified players for the slot. awyp and I during the auction were talking about a "Farceus tax" of users who were signed up to play Farceus going for higher values than expected as a result of the limited pool.
Click to expand...
awyp said:
I agree with everything a fairy is saying for the most part. Farceus shouldn’t be a repeat slot based off the interest from the overall pool last year.
Click to expand...
Last seasons (and the season prior) Farceus pool was to us (myself and other community Farceus players) very competitive. Even more than last years regular Ubers seeing some of the concessions certain teams made during early-midseason. Yes, you can argue that "Farceus Tax" inflated player prices but that's the price teams pay for when there are enough competent players. There are compelling reasons to remove it for this edition but I don't feel like any points addressed bar the one below justify it.

a fairy said:
IIRC, less than 20 users indicated a desire to play Farceus, and that's before cutting out non-starter-viable names.
Click to expand...
If there was any reason to cut this slot, it should be done if both the number and quality during player signups are lacking. Again, despite the low number of signups last year I think it was more than good enough to field. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to overload the tour with multiple lower tier slots (which extends to UU for me). The Farceus playerbase is very passionate and for it to be removed when nothing seems to be wrong (?) be a shame.

awyp said:
You can go for the simple double Ubers slot which is great since DPP Ubers draws a lot of interest from the player base and unbiasedly one of the greatest metas of all time.
Click to expand...
There are always going to be excessive numbers of signups for e.g. OU for reasons similar to this; ultimately, this isn't too meaningful when the quality of said signups is not commensurate.

Wanted to also chime in that a suspect slot is a waste as stated by Pix, Hacker and Kristyl. Would really be interested to see if a second Bo3 slot be on the table.

Heres to a good 5th edition of DPPPL!
 
Bo3 OU needs to stay, and I think there is no need for a second Bo3 OU slot. One is the sweetspot since it's where we saw the best of the best flock to.

Generally not too fussed about OU-rachi since preferably we'd have the best of the best playing there and like mentioned above those players are mostly interested in Bo3. Kinda don't wanna dilute the Bo3 pool either by some deciding to play OU-rachi.
I would prefer a dedicated tour to OU-rachi so I'm unsure if DPPPL is the place for it.

However, this is actually one of the last opportunities to have a closer look at what DPP without rachi might look like. Having such a slot might be crucial in aiding the playerbase in the discussion that WILL follow after SPL and this is coming from someone who will likely vote no on a Jirachi ban (if I can be bothered to ladder for reqs). So I kinda changed my opinion towards yes, let's have OU no rachi slot.

Farceus and one of the UU slots could be changed to Bo3 Classic and OU suspect FOR ONE SEASON ONLY. The second UU slot was often played by versatile DPP players who could honestly have performed in any slot and the same could be said for Farceus (for the teams that didn't wanna get taxed).

In summary my ideal 10-slot format for this season would be:

Classic Bo3 (Ubers, OU, UU)
Ubers
OU Bo3
OU
OU
OU no rachi
UU
NU
PU
LC

I'm aware this does look like a lot of OU on paper but in reality it should be fine and it will make for a fire Ubers and UU season which the mainers of those tiers might appreciate.
My preference still lies with doing the exact same as szn IV except maybe Farceus -> Ubers if that's what the Ubers gamers want. The suggested format hopes to accommodate the OU suspect slot and potential relocation of the other Ubers slot.
 
format last year was okay, id keep most of it. suspect slots never accomplish anything though and i think a better use of time is to have a dedicated suspect tour for it instead of a suspect slot. Second UU slot is probably going to be a bit of a strain on the team because of overlap & burnout from UUPL and UUFPL, but I might be overthinking that
 
Kristyl said:
I don't like suspect test slots personally, supporting the bo3 slot again and as for everything else I don't have any strong opinions as I don't really play these tiers, so I'll just listen to other peoples thoughts regarding them.

My only question is should we just make all the OU slots Bo3? Genuinely curious what people think because last year there seemed to be a preference for the Bo3 slot among a good amount of the DPP playerbase so I'm wondering if enough people just want it to be the default. Or if we want to compromise maybe 2 Bo3 slots and 1 Bo1 slot could work too? Please let it be known what you think.
Click to expand...

I personally support all OU slots being bo3. There is really no reason to support bo1, outside of the ability to find teams. Circuit and Classic have been bo3 for ages.

It’s simply far more competitive than bo1.
 
Laurel said:
I personally support all OU slots being bo3. There is really no reason to support bo1, outside of the ability to find teams. Circuit and Classic have been bo3 for ages.

It’s simply far more competitive than bo1.
Click to expand...
I agree bo3 is very important and allows the better player to win. Lets do doubles ou too, adv has doubles as well, its 2025 its time to embrace doubles! We love DPP DOU!
 
bit of a noob fwiw so take this with a grain of salt, but have we considered every tier as Bo3? As others have said its more competitive and has been standard for circuit/classic, and especially bc DPP in general has a reputation for fast games (and is sometimes despectively characterized as more variance heavy) — i’m not too familiar with lower tiers other than LC but i’d be hard pressed to imagine that people wouldn’t play 3 rounds of that lightning fast format.
 
Greetings,

goldmason and I will be hosting DPPPL V!!!

As mentioned in the OP, this thread was meant to target whether Farceus is a feasible tier to keep inside of this tournament. Collectively we will forward with keeping DPP Ubers Farceus for this edition of DPPPL V. OU Slots will remain the same with Bo3 + 2 OUs. Increasing the number of Bo3s for a team tournament > singular slots doesn't feel like the wave and making every tier Bo3 just because single-elimination tournaments follow that precedent doesn't justify what's already working for DPPPL V.

The slots for this tournament are listed below:

DPP Ubers
DPP Ubers + Farceus
DPP OU
DPP OU
DPP OU BO3
DPP UU
DPP UU
DPP NU
DPP PU
DPP LC
 
RE: Retains in DPPPL V

Alrighty, the first policy discussion I’m making is regarding the retains for DPPPL V (our current edition). This edition formally doesn't feature retains due to initial communication of the format remaining the same. Retains were mentioned internally and externally thus questioning its inclusion in DPPPL V. We are reopening up the format discussion for this edition instead of finalizing a decision without one due to manager signups ongoing. This is important due to manager signups currently not mentioning retains, thus implying that the format would remain the same as the previous edition, DPPPL IV, which didn't feature retains. Communication serves a vital part for all parties involved being our hosts, the current non-confirmed manager signups, and members/spectators of the DPP community. I believe the best way to handle retains is to reopen the format discussion which brings us here now. Manager signups will be extended until retains are finalized for DPPPL V to remain transparent to all parties involved. DPPPL (and many oldgen ROA team tournaments) follows 1 manager selfbuy + 2 retains. Retains are set as (previous DPPPL price +3k). This is not changing if implemented.

Tagging relevant parties for input:
Current Host Party: roxie, goldmason, mielke
Former Notable DPPPL Hosts: Maia & Vertigo (DPPPL III), velvet Irene @zscarlett (DPPPL IV)
Current DPPPL V Manager Signups: Vulpix03, Magician, awyp, a fairy, Dridri457, grayblood, 16bit, BIG WILL, Void, -Howkings, Oathkeeper, JabbaTheGriffin, seraphz, estra, Quinn, Zcarlett, eden, Dj Breloominati♬
 
Last edited:
Strongly recommend retains - they weren't around last year only because the amount of teams got expanded from 6 to 8 and it wouldn't be fair to two teams to miss out on retains. Retains increase the competitiveness of teams and make the tournament more enjoyable for participants and spectators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top