Tournaments GSC Slam League - Format Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeeOrSomething

BeeOrSomething

Move The World
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top Community Contributoris a Top Metagame Resource Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Welcome to the very first edition of GSC Slam League! An auction-style lower tier-only GSC team tournament featuring not one, but two slots for each tier! This tournament will feature Ubers, UU, NU, PU, and ZU.

Any player can participate in the first slot for each tier. However, the second slot will contain a restriction.
For each of the following, the player in the second slot for each respective tier cannot have played GSC in the most recent editions of:
Ubers - GSCPL or UPL
UU - GSCPL or UUPL
NU - GSCPL or NUCL
PU - GSCPL or PUBD
ZU - ZU Olympiad

If you have alternate suggestions for what the restrictions should be, please post to let us know.

There will be a minimum of 3 substitute slots for each team, totaling to 130k for 10 starters + 3 subs. Restrictions for the second slot will apply to substitutes unless there is no other available substitute.

Now, I planned this to be a shortish team tournament so that it concludes with time before GSCPL begins as a way to reduce burnout potential while still providing activity during what would otherwise be a dead summertime. At first, this meant 4 teams for 3 regular season weeks and 1 week of playoffs. However, there are other options worth exploring.

Format options:
1. 4 teams, 3 week regular season, 1 week playoffs between top 2
2. UWL style format with 4 teams, 6 week regular season where each team plays each other twice, 1 week playoffs between top 2
3. 6 teams, 5 week regular season, 2 week playoffs between top 4

Now, there are other options pertaining to specific tiers I would like to discuss, mainly with regards to UU and PU.

Suspect options:
1. Should Typhlosion be legal in the first (and maybe second) UU tier?
2. Should Arbok be legal in the first (and maybe second) PU tier?

This is meant to address recent tiering talks about both, and I would like to see if people are interested in test drops being present in this tournament.

Lastly, 2 self-buys will be allowed. The first will be 15k and the second will be 25k.

In 2 weeks, after May 25th, this thread will be closed, and manager signups will be posted. The week after, player signups will be posted. Please make your thoughts heard in the meantime. Thank you for reading.
 
My opinion means little here but

It is my opinion that if arbok is not freed into PU as a whole and instead treated like a suspect slot mon
That both it and typhlosion should only be freed in slot one, where anyone can play.
I believe this is the case because it makes the second slot for people probably less versed in gsc lower tiers or atleast the one the slot is for, more readily able to pick it up and learn. Making a more fun tour for them, and likely higher quality games from those slots.

Thanks for reading.
 
Personally, I am in favor of the tournament being 4 weeks total and Arbok being legal in the first PU slot only. I don't have a strong opinion on Typhlosion either way so I wouldn't mind if it was included or not.
 
4 weeks to finish a team tournament sounds neat, since this is a purely for-fun tournament I don’t see a problem with this format being a bit more prone to variance. Traditional team tours can feel like a bit of a slog towards the end if your team isn’t doing well.

I would prefer arbok be dropped to both pu slots? I think we all kind of expect it won’t be broken and won’t completely centralize the meta, so I think getting a better sample size of games to prove that is useful. We just had pubd, pu open, and a ROA monthly ladder and tournament to play PU as it is currently so I don’t think it’s unfair to make both slots have arbok.

Typhlosion in UU, I don’t know if it should have a slot in this tour. On one hand, I played some test games with typhlosion and it seemed easy enough to handle. But it’s also very hard to fit on teams because it barely switches into anything safely. I think the best thing it adds so far is probably switching in on haunter a couple times for offensive teams and reversing the momentum versus it, and giving teams another mon above the crowded 268 speed tier. I’m generally in favor of testing Pokemon that aren’t broken because I believe if a Pokemon isn’t broken or in a higher tier, it should be allowed. I don’t think it will change the meta very much. For that reason, I’ll say I support one slot testing typhlosion.
 
I think for UU specifically, we should gauge what people actually want to try out. For example, in UUFPL, we are playing the slot with Baton Pass banned and Smeargle freed, the former which is something people have been asking to test for a while, the latter just being a consequence of it being fine in the tier without Baton Pass and having one more Spiker option surely can't be a bad thing. If nobody really cares that much about Typhlosion and it's not going to lead to anything, there isn't really any point in testing it other than "for fun". I envision this tour as helping people get more into GSC lower tiers that may not play them that regularly, so playing the actual tier or what the actual tier could realistically be should be a priority.

Now, if people actually want Typhlosion in UU because it is adding something positive and there's a reasonable chance it can see an official suspect in the future, then sure. But other than Chungler's post about it switching into Haunter and being a nice fast mon option, I haven't seen many real arguments as to why we should do this.
 
im for 4 teams having an tour in summer seems good but i also dont want burn out befor gscpl so it being smaller is the best in my opinion

for pu im for dropping arbok into both slots i dont want to make the arbok drop an masive slow thing when the opinion on dropping stuff into pu is so high right now and we still have multiple more possible drop stages so i rather want the increased amount game

and for uu i would like having 1 typhlosion slot in my games with it till now i liked the offensive addition it added to the tier while also not being to to strong
 
on typhlosion in gsc uu: im going to sign up for this tour and if i were selected to play id be interested in playing a gsc uu with typhlosion slot, doesnt seem too world-changing of a mon but im interested in seeing what interactions come about with it in the tier, and i think this is a good environment to test it out. and if something isnt broken and there is interest, it makes no sense to keep random mons in BL IMO.

on format:
1. too short imo especially if ur tryna get less
exposed players slotted
2. this tour was really cool so i support this, but i guess ud be worried abt the eliminated teams becoming burnt out later in the tour. long
3. classic pick and what i think is best for this tour

thanks for reading, seems like a fun tour format regardless of the length
 
BigFatMantis said:
Is there anyone actually opposed to just dropping Arbok outright? The correct method for VR tiering would seem to me to drop it, have this tour be a good test for it (in both slots), and then if it seems problematic vote to ban it to PUBL.Il
Click to expand...
Im for it i much rather have bok in publ if it is to much then in nu so that it actually can reflect its tiering status accurately
 
Hello, as someone who intends to play UU in this tournament, I would like to propose at least one UU slot in this tournament do the same ruleset as in UUFPL. That would mean testing Smeargle.

I initially believed UU Smeargle would be fairly deadweight, but after exploring the Pokemon more I do believe it has something to offer. So far, I have used Smeargle twice in UUFPL, these being the only uses of it in the tournament. Both teams I used it as a lead Spiker on experimental offensive teams, paired with Pokemon like Feraligatr, Nidoqueen, Haunter, Raichu / Electabuzz, Mr Mime, and more.

Smeargle does have a useful niche on these teams. Its ability to mess with the opponent via the use of techniques like Spore, Encore, or Destiny Bond make me generally prefer it over Qwilfish on these kind of styles. Smeargle can better setup Spikes against certain foes, can support its team more than Qwilfish, and is better at the whole “Setup Spikes and then trade (with this guy, via Destiny Bond) a 1-1”. On the flipside, Smeargle is slower, has far worse longevity, and lacks an immediate offensive presence. Smeargle is generally 2HKOd by most attacks, meaning a critical hit is usually enough to OHKO it. Smeargle isn’t good for much beyond using Spikes, its poor stats don’t let it do much.

I believe Smeargle is a healthy Pokemon that rewards good teambuilding and enables certain offensive structures to be more viable, while lowering the metagames reliance on Qwilfish. I have explored Smeargle on more traditional HO structures, like the well known Scyther / Pinsir / Granbull / Electrode structures, and it can do a similar role as on the other structure I mentioned, while giving these HO teams a more suitable Spikes user.

I understand the different philosophies regarding dropping Pokemon from UUBL to UU. Some might say a Pokemon like Smeargle wouldn’t be overpowered in GSC UU so it should be dropped, but another might counter with “if it doesn’t add anything positive, why drop it?”. I laid out why I think Smeargle does bring something positive to this tier, and really, I don’t think anyone is arguing Smeargle would be too powerful for UU. You don’t have to agree with what I have said regarding Smeargle, and if you want me to elaborate further or expand then let me know. I believe Smeargle should be tested in this tournament.

Also, I think we should do something with Arbok in PU. I don’t know how we can keep justifying keeping this Pokemon as NU; it is almost universally agreed to be useless, and is ranked near the absolute bottom of the NU VR, below several PU and even ZU Pokemon. To have it ranked as an NU Pokemon is misleading.

I intend to expand my thought on UUBL (and Typhlosion) in another post, unsure if it will be in this thread or another.
 
Last edited:
Ok so to summarize what I'm seeing so far:

- 4 teams 3 week regular season
- arbok test in both PU slots
- no typhlosion for UU

As an aside, I would like to follow up on DAWNBUSTER's post and request more opinions about whether we should allow smeargle + ban bp in UU (one or both slots) for this tournament.
 
BeeOrSomething said:
Ok so to summarize what I'm seeing so far:

- 4 teams 3 week regular season
- arbok test in both PU slots
- no typhlosion for UU

As an aside, I would like to follow up on DAWNBUSTER's post and request more opinions about whether we should allow smeargle + ban bp in UU (one or both slots) for this tournament.
Click to expand...
I definitely think standard GSC UU with no modifications should be one slot. For the other slot I don’t mind what it is, but in my previous post I did sort of agree with DAWNBUSTER on the sentiment of having a test be something that is more likely to lead to action, which I think ban bp + unban Smeargle would do. Typhlosion to me just seems like a “cool” idea but I cant see a basis for dropping it that doesn’t also apply to Venusaur beyond “cool”. Maybe in the future there will be more traction for it and it can be explored more.
 
FINAL FORMAT

- 4 weeks with a 3 week regular season and a 1 week finals between top 2
- Arbok legal in both PU slots
- Baton pass banned and Smeargle freed in UU unrestricted only

Thank you all for contributing your thoughts in this thread and in the GSC discord. Manager signups will go up soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top