Tournament DWCoP V - Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
mimi

mimi

Just be an angel, drive men crazy
is a Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Discussion Thread
Welcome to the fifth instalment of the Doubles World Cup! I’m mimi (mizuhime) and I will be one of your hosts for this tournament, alongside the wonderful moderation team! This thread will serve as the place to discuss all things relating to the upcoming Doubles World Cup, including regions, tournament size, eligibility, etc. Most of the following details in this thread will be tentative upon hearing community feedback, and will be finalized before the tournament starts.

Doubles World Cup of Pokémon Five (DWCOP V) will likely follow the same structure as last year’s tournament. In the first phase players will be placed in pools of 4 with players from other teams, where they must play each of the three other players in their pool in a best of 1 SV DOU match. This pools phase will last two weeks, and will be the qualifying phase for the playoffs. Any substitutions made in the pool phase will continue for the entirety of the pool phase.

The 8 regions with the best record will emerge from the pools and will compete in the playoffs. The #1 seeded team will play the #8, #2 will play the #7, #3 will play the #6 and the #4 will play #5 where each player will play a best of 1 SV DOU match against a player on the opposing team. The team with the best record in this matchup will be the winner. Any ties will result in a tier breaker where 3 players from each team will play a best of 1 SV DOU match.

Last year we had 13 teams with 8 starters and 4 subs on each.

For DWCOP V, considerings last years numbers, we are looking to have a minimum of 12 teams. Last year we had 13 teams and we’d always like to keep the door open to possible new teams in this edition as well. Teams will be finalized once we have a better idea of signups, but here were the teams last year:
APAC
Brazil
Europe
Canada
China
France
India
Italy
Latin America
Spain
US Central
US East
US West


With the US regions divided by the below map:
hPvhM13.png



Our projected timeline is as follows:
  • Manager Signups to go up on October 13th.
  • Signups to close October 27th, and managers will be selected on that date.
  • A “prep week” from October 28th-November 3rd
  • Pools to be posted on November 4th.
  • Playoffs to be posted November 18th.
Regarding player eligibility: We are thinking that we will continue the same rules as last year, where players are eligible to play for whatever region they are currently living in (with a verified IP address). However, players that played for a different region last year than what they are currently living in this year are eligible to be “grandfathered” in to their team from last year. This “grandfather” clause will not apply to regions that have been split. For instance, if Europe were to be split between team United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, then all players living in the United Kingdom would only be eligible to play on the U.K. team, not on the team for the rest of Europe, even if they were on team Europe last year.

Use this thread to discuss your thoughts on the tournament, and here are a few questions to get the discussion going:
1. Should there be any changes to team sizes from 8 players and 4 substitutes?
2. Should any additional teams be considered from the 13 that we had last year?
3. How do you feel about the eligibility requirements?
4. Should there be any changes to the tournament structure, whether that’s pool sizes, playoffs size, or length of the tournament?
5. Should there be a prep week in between when signups close and the pools are released?
6. Why is Idyll a top 5 user only sometimes?
Or any other thoughts or feedback you may have!
 
last year's format feels pretty great: 3 games in 2 weeks is a sweet spot, 8 team playoff is good (i imagine we aren't breaking 16 and more realistically hitting somewhere under that and between 12, just pointing out that even though we're advancing >50% of the tour i don't think that's a problem), all that good stuff

I think the prep week is pretty unnecessary. The current SV DOU tier is not really new. We haven't gotten any consequential tiering action since the Flutter Mane ban and it's not like SCL has completely reinvented the meta. Pretty much every team from the listed OP is going to have 5-6 starters that have been involved in circuit/team tours this year and can get the other additions up to speed quickly. I don't really think it's worth the momentum drain, both for teams and spectators. World Cup is a hype tour with a lot of energy because playing for your region is a pretty exciting thing and I think we should strive to keep the energy fresh. I wouldn't bump up the start date at all, either we can wait an extra week for signups to open or close.
 
I propose to be 9 starters + 3 subs in poff stage instead of 8+4. That way you can avoid ties and people dont disconnect from the tour. Also we can know when the tournament is going to start and when it's going to end (1 week difference because of pools)
If they can be 9 also in pools it can be good but if you want to keep groups of 4 it's more difficult if there isnt a exact number of teams, that's why I said only for poff.
If it's done as last year, a team can play no tie breaks and it can have almost a month of wait in pools, quarters and semifinal tbs and I think waits are not good in these types of tournament
 
Playing 400 games of the same tier (plus tiebreaks) in a team tournament format is overkill and bad . It might have been acceptable in the first year of a new generation (to accelerate growth and things like that), but now it feels excessive, especially considering that CG is even more represented in Doubles than it is in Singles. We're even playing it in tournaments specifically created to feature non-popular formats.

To change this, we don't need to introduce wild formats or add strange tiers. A format like 4/5 SV OU + SV UU + SV GC (or Limited, or whatever ends up being the name) would work. This way, we can start developing a format that includes Uber-level Pokémon after the confirmed demise of traditional Ubers. Adding SM OU and SS OU would also make sense to complete a 9 tiers format. These are tiers (with cg exception) that were good enough to be played in DOU PL, so why not here?

If there are teams that don't have players for a specific tier, that's fine. They have a year to scout or train someone in between WCoP interactions. If we avoid adding a different tier because of this, we'll just face the same issue next year, and we'll be stuck in this monotonous bs of format forever.

PD: i talked about 9 tier format, because i support shiritu idea , tiebreaks should be avoid if posible
PD2 = adding 1 or 2 vgc spots instead of the non cg ou, could work too, and would make this tournament dou propaganda for vgc players, which is cool
 
This way, we can start developing a format that includes Uber-level Pokémon after the confirmed demise of traditional Ubers.
Click to expand...
please no, don't "start developing" a format by debuting it in a team tournament. it doesn't work if there's no structural plan to develop the tier after the tournament, nor is it particularly competitive to have a tier completely without resources. DUbers in Derby I 'worked' because the player pool was good enough to make something of it, but you can't guarantee the same quality in a WCOP format where most teams likely don't have a player whose even touched dead tiers like DUbers or GS Cup before. i think if it is maintained well we could consider NDDUbers in Derby III but that's too far out. just don't put Dubers or GS cup here

wrt
These are tiers (with cg exception) that were good enough to be played in DOU PL, so why not here?
Click to expand...
because the player pools for those respective tiers can be gauged before they're actually put in the tournament? though the roster quality & balance concerns are still there, i'm not so strongly opposed to the idea, but i think the reasoning that these tiers are in DPL so they could be in DWCOP is faulty
 
ryo yamada2001 said:
please no, don't "start developing" a format by debuting it in a team tournament. it doesn't work if there's no structural plan to develop the tier after the tournament, nor is it particularly competitive to have a tier completely without resources. DUbers in Derby I 'worked' because the player pool was good enough to make something of it, but you can't guarantee the same quality in a WCOP format where most teams likely don't have a player whose even touched dead tiers like DUbers or GS Cup before. i think if it is maintained well we could consider NDDUbers in Derby III but that's too far out. just don't put Dubers or GS cup here

wrt

because the player pools for those respective tiers can be gauged before they're actually put in the tournament? though the roster quality & balance concerns are still there, i'm not so strongly opposed to the idea, but i think the reasoning that these tiers are in DPL so they could be in DWCOP is faulty
Click to expand...
First of all, the format I suggested is just an example of a viable option that isn’t too extreme or disruptive to the status quo. It wouldn’t unbalance teams while still incorporating different tiers. In fact, if no one mains a particular tier, it could actually create more balance team-wise. Ultimately, whatever format you end up choosing would be fine.

Second, I’ve given up trying to understand why Smogon is the only place that tries to balance a naturally unbalanced format like WCoP, which takes away the magic of underdogs—so I won’t dwell on that. However, adding a couple of tiers where there are teams without a main wouldn’t significantly unbalance an 8/9-player team format. At some point, new tiers will need to be introduced, and teams that want to tryhard can start preparing for the tiers they’re missing.

Third, in line with the second point, while WCoP is indeed a serious and prestigious tournament, it’s not the ultimate "tryhard" one (like DOU PL). So, having one or two tiers that are a little less competitive or slightly unbalanced is perfectly fine. We don’t need SMB vs Nails, both in their prime, in every single round.

Finally, regarding why I proposed a "new tier": a tier isn’t going to grow unless you give it a chance. To properly develop a tier, you need a minimum player base and some level of interest. You won’t get that if the only way to play the tier is by asking around in the DOU room or playing one or two friendly tournaments a year. Sometimes a leap of faith is necessary—when a hyped and loved new tier enters a team tour, it generates interest. From there, a council can be formed, and a plan can be developed (this particular team tour is ideal for that, given the nature of the communities playing against each other and the higher levels of engagement and support within teams compared to other tours). I’m not saying it has to be GS Cup (though I’d personally enjoy that because I like Ubers) or even this specific tournament—just explaining why I proposed it. Plus, many DOU players who play VGC (and there are a lot) have already played GS Cup, and they’ll continue to play, so it’s not like there’s no player base.

In summary, this was just an example (like the VGC spot, which I know will be immediately rejected) of a viable solution. There are many possible alternatives. My suggestion was simply about including more than one tier, not specifically this format.
 
I do wanna say I don't entirely hate the idea of there being something like 9 slots with 6 xSV x1 XY SM SS. Since we're using pools in regular season we don't really have to worry about the absence of ties and avoiding tiebreaks in playoffs is based. I would like to hear from some of the other regions on if they have thoughts on oldgens inclusion, because realistically the team I'm representing can field a roster either way so I don't want to sign off on it without more discussion. But if we have the field for it then I think it's not the worst thing to have some more oldgen representation. I don't think any other formats should be considered besides the official oldgens.

pls consider 9 slots even if we dont wanna do oldgens tiebreaks are eww eww ewwwwwwww
 
I really like the idea of having 9 slots and 3 subs, but I’m not in favor of all of them being SV OU like last year. My proposal is:

  • 5x SV
  • 1x UU
  • 1x Ubers
  • 1x SS
  • 1x SM
In my view, 5x SV is more than enough. DUU has a solid player base, and as mentioned before, this could be the moment for DUBers to develop. As a big fan and advocate for the tier, I can say it's not as hard to learn as UU or old gens, and new regions or interested players could have a lot more fun in it compared to more conventional formats.

As I mentioned before, we can use this tournament as an opportunity to develop/revive DUBers and create a more solid player base, since right now we only have ladder and almost nonexistent tournaments like the recent NDDubers kickoff, which doesn't end up being the same as SV DUBers. This tier has a great community waiting to be discovered, and we could even create a council and give it the treatment it deserves, just like other tiers. :miraidon::groudon:

On the other hand, SS and SM also have strong player bases, as shown in various old gen tours and PLs. I’ve seen that many newer players have been able to adapt to these tiers and deliver good results. :tapu-koko:
 
-I think the prep week isn't necessary and should be cut.
-Killing tiebreaks is awesome and we should definitely do that. I personally like keeping 8 for the regular season and then adding the 9th in playoffs, but having 9 throughout is fine too.
-I think adding oldgens is good, specifically SS/SM/XY. I don't think most regions will have trouble fielding these but if we go further back we might run into issues. Something like 5x SV / 1x SS/SM/XY in reg season and 6x SV in playoffs seems good to me. I don't really think we should add UU or any Ubers formats especially as DUU is in both DPL and Derby already.
-Using a team tour, especially one that rewards a custom, as a way to 'develop' a tier with a struggling player base is a bad idea. Adding Dubers to Derby I did nothing for the tier. Tiers need to show their strength and have established presence before we start adding them to the premier team tournaments.
 
My issue with an odd number of slots mainly comes from the transition from pools to playoffs, 8 slots in pools is important because with that you can make pretty much any number of teams work, no need for qualifiers or gatekeeping teams that would otherwise be able to exist just fine, its nice and convenient. Going from 8 in pools and either adding a slot or removing one in playoffs is really undesirable to me as well, both have downsides that offset the benefit of removing tiebreaks imo. Adding a slot feels like it could hurt smaller teams quite a bit, as if a team can just barely get 8 starting slots, adding another would likely hurt the team's performance in playoffs (also it could cause issues with the sub count as you're going from half to a third of your starting roster having subs). Removing a slot wouldn't have either of those issues but you would be forced to boot someone from the starting lineup, which could result in mixed reactions and that's something I'd rather avoid if possible. In general though, changing the amount of starters in the middle of the tour is something i'd rather avoid if possible, so unless a solid solution to tiebreakers is proposed that doesn't involve switching the number of slots, i'd prefer to keep it 8 throughout.

For the tiers, I'd be fine with both one each of SS/SM/XY and full CG, l don't like the idea of adding something like DUbers at all though, as a teamtour, especially one that awards a custom, shouldn't be used to forcibly develop a tier (or really establish it in DUber's case lol), that interest or development should come from people interested in the tier, i.e what happened with Natdex. Derby didn't even help establish DUbers like kaori pointed out, it died the second it ended pretty much, so giving a slot to it here when it was tried and failed earlier isn't the right call to me.
 
Regarding formats I'd prefer DWCOP sticks to all current gen DOU as it keeps the tour more accessible and oldgens + lower tiers have DPL and Derby to represent them. I also think choosing which tiers to include isn't 100% clear cut and can favor certain teams more heavily depending on the tiers included (yeah better cg teams are better with all cg but there is a baseline and cg dou is much easier to hop into if smaller teams want to recruit non-dou mains).

Removing tiebreaker weeks would be awesome, and if adding/removing a slot isn't the way to go I propose a tiebreaker slot where in the case of a tie, whichever team wins that matchup wins the week. I think this also gives the added benefit of some extra drama and a pretty much guarunteed fire pairing for each matchup. This could potentially be removed for the finals as for me personally a tiebreaker week feels less bad then as no other teams have to wait around in between playing.

Also +1 for removing a prep week, all it does is kill hype 90% of people play on the weekend anyways
 
zoe said:
My issue with an odd number of slots mainly comes from the transition from pools to playoffs, 8 slots in pools is important because with that you can make pretty much any number of teams work, no need for qualifiers or gatekeeping teams that would otherwise be able to exist just fine, its nice and convenient. Going from 8 in pools and either adding a slot or removing one in playoffs is really undesirable to me as well, both have downsides that offset the benefit of removing tiebreaks imo. Adding a slot feels like it could hurt smaller teams quite a bit, as if a team can just barely get 8 starting slots, adding another would likely hurt the team's performance in playoffs (also it could cause issues with the sub count as you're going from half to a third of your starting roster having subs). Removing a slot wouldn't have either of those issues but you would be forced to boot someone from the starting lineup, which could result in mixed reactions and that's something I'd rather avoid if possible. In general though, changing the amount of starters in the middle of the tour is something i'd rather avoid if possible, so unless a solid solution to tiebreakers is proposed that doesn't involve switching the number of slots, i'd prefer to keep it 8 throughout.

For the tiers, I'd be fine with both one each of SS/SM/XY and full CG, l don't like the idea of adding something like DUbers at all though, as a teamtour, especially one that awards a custom, shouldn't be used to forcibly develop a tier (or really establish it in DUber's case lol), that interest or development should come from people interested in the tier, i.e what happened with Natdex. Derby didn't even help establish DUbers like kaori pointed out, it died the second it ended pretty much, so giving a slot to it here when it was tried and failed earlier isn't the right call to me.
Click to expand...
while i agree than having to cut one starter sucks, adding 1 is nice, you can use it to reward the sub that showed more activity and engaged more with the team or something like that
 
After internal discussion among the hosts the following decisions have been made:

The tournament will be strictly CG, despite being an old gens supporter in most cases, myself and the moderation team / other hosts agree that World Cup is better as an entirely current gen tournament. Old generations get plenty of support throughout the year, and like bagel mentioned above, accessibility is a big thing.

Prep week is deleted at the request of the community, lots of very valid points were given and it's just not needed. Thus, the new timeline for the tournament will be as follows:

  • Manager Signups to go up on October 13th.
  • Signups to close October 27th, and managers will be selected on that date.
  • Pools to be posted on October 28th
  • Playoffs to be posted November 11th.
Players will be allowed to represent the countries they did last year, however, players will be forced off of continental teams if the country they live in produced a team last year and forms a team again this year.

We hear the concern regarding tie breaks, we're discussing potential solutions to that.

Thank you to everyone who's contributed thus far, you guys rock.
 
Want to give some further thoughts from the hosting/forum mod team. Just to be clear, nothing below is set in stone, and we are looking for feedback and/or discussion on the below points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we have a revised timeline for the tournament, as follows:
  • By the 27th, all rules for the tournament will ideally have been decided, and managers for teams are selected.
  • Signups close November 3rd, and Pools are posted November 4th.
We feel that this timeline will allow us to finalize the rules & regions & managers, while still allowing players to be able to signup after those are set in stone. Pools beginning November 4th matches the dates listed previously in the circuit thread.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as far as regions go, we believe the following teams make the most sense due to current signups:
  1. Asia Pacific
  2. India
  3. US West
  4. US East
  5. US Central
  6. Spain
  7. Brazil
  8. Venezuela (Currently 11 signups, so would need 1 more for a full team).
  9. Europe
  10. France
  11. Canada (Currently 11 signups, so would need 1 more for a full team).
  12. Latin America + South America
  13. China
While there has been a proposal for an Iberian Peninsula team (AKA allowing Portugese players onto team Spain, as opposed to being a part of team Europe), we've felt that this just seems to be a way to let one or two players join Spain, which is already a region quite capable of forming their own roster.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, with regards to tiebreakers, generally the hosting/forum mod team would like to remove tiebreakers from playoffs, as they can really slow down the tournament for spectators and teams uninvolved in the tiebreaker. But we do acknowledge if there isn't a good solution to how to remove tiebreakers, they could remain. If we were to try to remove tiebreakers, we see 3 different possibilities, each with their own drawbacks:
  1. Adding a 9th playing slot in playoffs. There is concern here with changing the structure of the roster in playoffs, as well as really shortening the bench, as teams would go from 8 starters and 4 bench to 9 starters and 3 bench players, changing the ratio of starters to bench players from 2 to 1 to 3 to 1.
  2. Reducing to 7 playing slot in playoffs. Similar to above, there are concerns about changing the structure of rosters in playoffs, as well as this method could reward more top-heavy teams.
  3. A designated tiebreaker slot. The way this would work is when submitting lineups, both teams would designate one slot as their tiebreaker player, and those two players would be matched up, and the winner of that game would earn their team the tiebreaking advantage. The concern here is having one matchup being so much more important than others.
We'd love to hear your thoughts on the above! Please remember that posts here are a much better way to let your voice be heard!
 
my preference for playoffs structure would be 7 slots > 9 slots > tiebreaker slot > 8 slots

If the concern about 7 slots is that this unfairly benefits top heavy teams, I'm a bit confused as to why that isn't being mentioned for 9 slots as well. Because quite honestly a team that would struggle in a 7v7 is probably scraping pretty hard for 8th and 9th slots while the 'top' team probably just goes from strong players to mid players. I think cutting down the slots increases quality, and I don't think it's particularly harsh to do so for the playoff phase as you'll have 2 weeks and 3 games per player to assess where a cut would need to be made. Better this than have to take a player off the bench with no data if your bench goes silent after 2 weeks into the tour.

I still don't think 9v9 is the worst case but yeah I generally foresee 7v7 being the better option. Tiebreaker slot is a cool idea in theory but I think it's a pretty weak compromise between wanting to eliminate tiebreakers and keeping 8 starters for the sake of keeping 8 starters. Pokemon is Pokemon and variance can happen super frequently, imagine putting in more work into your tiebreak slot just to get fished or lucked. Maybe if we did 3 tiebreak slots instead of one it'd be a bit better but I still don't like detracting away from the rest of the team. I think it's much more reasonable to say that 7 games are more important than having your shakiest 8th slot in the fray than have 1-3 games be more important than the remaining 7-5.

Again though, prefer any of these options to tiebreaks. All CG format presents us with the best case scenario to finally have a tour that ditches them, let's do it.
 
If Playoffs are 7 or 9 slots, I would like to pitch an idea to make this consistent throughout the entire tournament. i.e. Pools are also 7 or 9 slots. This shouldn't affect Pools in a significant way, since teams qualify based on total Wins vs Losses. And the benefit is that there would be no structure difference between Pools and Playoffs.

Edit: Nevermind, this idea does not work because the total number of teams isn't divisible by 4.
 
Last edited:
Personally like all options but the 7v7 one. Not sure how it goes in practice but in theory it sounds like it will punish the most well-rounded teams as well as force some players to have to stop playing despite not really dragging the team down that much which sounds unfun.

If I had to pick between the other 2 options I'd say the tiebreaker slot sounds most endearing. There are a ton of players who operate very well if not better when in the hot seat and I think that being in a slot that directly rewards players that are clutch sounds very hype and interesting to me.
 
Instead of 1 tiebreaker slot, why not 3 tiebreaker slots, where teams would designate 3 slots and the team having the advantage there would win the tiebreaker if it happens. It would mimic the current system and take the pressure off having one sole matchup deciding tiebreakers.
 
hear me out: what if we do normal tiebreaks like every other tour in this website because its a tried and true model.

7/9 slots would only work for playoffs if anything, no tiea in pools makes for teams to qual/lose way too early and tour loses a lot of hype. designated slots i see the ratpacker idea, but one only is way too much and honestly i think games counting more as a whole is a bad idea
 
Éric said:
7/9 slots would only work for playoffs if anything, no tiea in pools makes for teams to qual/lose way too early and tour loses a lot of hype.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the tournament is running WCoP-style Pools, not Week-by-Week matchups. The only metric for teams to qualify is how much games they win or lose collectively, which ±1 slot (±3 games) isn't changing fundamentally.
 
Magic Mayhem Maiden said:
If Playoffs are 7 or 9 slots, I would like to pitch an idea to make this consistent throughout the entire tournament. i.e. Pools are also 7 or 9 slots. This shouldn't affect Pools in a significant way, since teams qualify based on total Wins vs Losses. And the benefit is that there would be no structure difference between Pools and Playoffs.

Edit: To clarify, the tournament is running WCoP-style Pools, not Week-by-Week matchups. The only metric for teams to qualify is how much games they win or lose collectively, which ±1 slot (±3 games) isn't changing fundamentally.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, with pools being 4 players per pool (aka each player playing 3 pool games against the other 3 players in their pools), you need the number of starters to be divisible by 4 for the math of the pools to work. So 8 starters per team in pools is really the most feasible option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top