As a disclaimer, the things I will be saying here are my thoughts and do not reflect the entire Forum Mod team. I will give my thoughts on every topic that was addressed in the thread thus far. I'll be frank, I'm really busy lately so if you ask me something in regards to this, I may not reply with a big answer any time soon. Still feel free to ask if there's anything, but just wanted to make it clear. Spent more time than I'd like on this, but wanted to make sure I give my thoughts on more or less everything mentioned at least once. I also apologize if its hard to read or comes off as ramble-y, wrote a lot of it in the metro.
- OM vs Oldgen
As others like lax and mushamu said, I don't want an exact repeat of MPL tiers; I have no desire for this tour being MPL (but in Winter). The essence of MWP is the OMs and I do believe that needs to be maintained to some extent. When the original thread was made, I was the one that indicated that OM priority should be highlighted in the rules. However, reflecting on it and reading the thread, it is true that there is a big disparity in quality of player pool and interest, and just general quality of many of the OMs. The scene just isn't the same as it was during the first MWPs, when a lot of our top players were actively playing he OMs and there was a lot of dedication in building and maintaining the resources. In their defence, they were the biggest victims of the constant changing nature of SS because of DLCs. There was just never time for those interested in them to properly handle them because they changed a lot. The lack of good options for OMs does give me some openness towards including oldgens in some capacity. However, I should stress that I do believe in OMs having their place in the scene, and that they should and could regain a spot once they are developed more. This thread has shown some good dedication for these metagames, I'd like to see that actually channeled into their development. With decently structured metagames, I'd be much more open to give them individual tournaments and maybe even an OM exclusive team tour to test their viability.
- LGPE, NFE, etc...
As a guideline, if a tier is not supported in the OM mega thread, I don't wanna see them mentioned here. There is a 0% chance I'm going to seriously consider a metagame that was not tested and has no resources. If people are interested in OMs besides the ones listed, I'd suggest reaching out to those in charge of the mega thread to get them kickstarted. MWP is one of our biggest events and shouldn't be used as a playground to try new things.
- AAA & STAB
Think this is pretty much a given consensus within the community that both these metas just weren't great last time. The nature of these tiers, AAA in particularly, simply make it too easy to customize Pokemon to shut down certain types without real responses. I can remember so many different matches from last year where the player basically had no options from preview. An even more telling thing is that Sae, one of the best performing players in STAB last season, supported removing them from what I've heard. If even the experts in the tiers think its uncompetitive, is there really much more to say. I do not have any intentions on supporting their inclusion; they would need a severe revamp in tiering to be considered.
- Doubles, Ubers, Tier Shift
Similarly to the first point, these metagames just aren't as developed. While some do have resources in the mega thread, none of these have had a serious tour apperance in SS to support their viability and interest. Ubers used to be a part of MWP and was removed because people complained about it much like they are about AAA & STAB now. While as for Doubles, just read this from the OM Mega Thread for yourselves:
The bottom line is, these metagames just don't have the support and history to be included. I know some people have mentioned that players from the respective communities could be interested and fill in slots such as for Doubles for example, but honestly I don't care about that. It's great to have more people be exposed to the tier and community don't get me wrong, but the objective of our major tours are to cater to our community and not to others. If a slot is being included with the premise that people whose only involvement in Monotype is going to be playing it in the tour and leaving, then there is no point of having it. What good does this bring to the people the tournament is supposed to be for? We should be prioritizing what the members of our community are interested in, would enjoy playing and watching, and most importantly, would actually want to play. I find it fun to have more people from outside be interested and to join, but it shouldn't be done at the total detriment of our own; there needs to be a good balance.
- 6 slots
I defended 8 slots during the MPL thread, and I again think MWP should be 8 slots - but at a condition. The concerns raised by Chaitanya are absolutely valid. I'm sure plenty of people are gonna go "why is the guy that went 0-7 talking about how other people shouldn't have been in the tour", and if you wanna have that mentality go for it. However, the matter of the fact is that the bar to be drafted is too low. I've literally seen people ask "who is this guy?" about someone on the MPL winning team when someone linked a battle in a discord. That to me is incredibly concerning. The fact that people don't even know the people that won because they made it in and out of the tournament without making any mark (no disrespect). These tournaments are supposed to be enjoyed by the community, but they should also be highlighting the best of it and be a pinnacle new players should aim to achieve. As it stands right now, there clearly is a surplus in funds, or a poor distribution of them, such that way too players who haven't made any impacts outside the tournament get picked. You shouldn't be able to be drafted just by being somewhat noticeable and talking to the right person. Of course, sometimes there are super rookies that blast through the scene after being drafted under the radar and that's perfectly fine. The issue is there isn't as many of those as there are people drafting multiple "I played with him and he had potential" players that leave the tour with no change in recognition. To reference mushamu's post:
l. Aeran's poor performance was unfortunate but it could have been mainly due to nerves-I've played games with him in friendlies and he's played well for the most part and I'm confident he could pop off in a later tournament if he keeps his effort up.
Perhaps those nerves were a result of him not being ready for the big stage and being pushed in too early. I quite like Aeran and hope to see him develop more and prove people wrong, so don't take this as an insult. It's just simply the fact that people are being put in the spotlight too easily and before they are ready. You are confident he could pop off in a later tournament if he keeps his effort up, as am I, but the big stage should be about those that have popped off or that can, not those that could.
I've worked with Hyperspace12 a lot since last MPL and between then and I can say he's a great player with a high building and playing ceiling that managers somehow missed out on-Zarif even said he would have drafted him if he could redo his draft and I'm sure a lot of other managers would have as well.
Again, I really like Hyperspace12 and look forward to his definite debut in this upcoming tour. However, in regards to MPL, managers didn't somehow miss out on him, he simply didn't have a track record or reputation to catch anyone's eye enough. I commend his excellent efforts of getting his name out there, and improving by working with you (after MPL as you said) after going undrafted because that is exactly what it should be about. If we give away spots to every single person that has great potential, they are simply going to stop growing in most cases. There's multiple examples of this happening, people become complacent if they've already entered the inner circle. In many cases, once you get drafted to a big tour, you are pretty much set for all the following ones. A lot of people just stop trying as hard because there's no need to impress anyone, you are secure. Letting everyone in doesn't foster potential, it dampens it.
Despite this, I am still not entirely convinced about making MWP 6 slots. I believe that the tournament can provide a good enough diversity of metagames that there shouldn't be such a disparity in playing ability. Moreover, as was my main focus in the MPL thread, I focus on the importance of community. It just doesn't feel write to scale down the stature of our main stage and shut out more of the community. While less slots can give new players more chances to have something to aspire towards, it also limits their chances in because the same old people already in the inner circle are gonna be bought every time. I'm just not sure 6 slots is the perfect approach, as Ticken mentioned I'd personally be more interested in trying 6 teams possibly with a format like the one suggested by Azelea in the MPL thread.
As Eien pointed out, for the sake of compromise, I would definitely like to try a 6 slot format or some other alternative. Personally, I'd prefer that we replace MWC (Monotype World Cup) by something of that nature. I don't think it's a tour too strongly beloved by anyone and hasn't always been a fixture anyways. It'd be interesting to use its slot as an opportunity to test out different things. The only issues I could see come out of that are potential lack of interest of doing yet another draft style tour with similar metagames in the year.
- LC
I haven't really played it in SS, so I can't really say much about it. I don't think it was too bad in MWP after Grookey was banned at least. I've seen very varying reviews on the metagame, with some saying its solid and should be included, while others thinking its a trainwreck. Would like to hear more arguments on both sides before making my decision on this one.
- Natdex
People have mentioned Natdex having "so much representation already", so I'll answer here what I did on discord. The tournaments hosted by Monotype Natdex have nothing to do with the stuff we host here. My Forum Mod team has no jurisdiction on what happens in Monotype Natdex PL nor in Natdex PL, so those are irrelevant to representation in the context of the Monotype forums. We wouldn't remove ORAS from a tournament just because its in ORAS PL, and we wouldn't remove LC despite it appearing in a bunch of LC community discord tours. Others use the fact that "they have their own community" as a reason to exclude them. My personal stance on this is that them having built a community is an even greater reason for them to be included. They have clearly proven they have a dedicated player base and that their metagame is competitive. While Monotype Natdex has definitely grown into its own entity due to the efforts of those working on it, and simply the nature of the tier, it still remains as an Monotype OM. In a tournament, which I believe should give a platform to OMs, this definitely has a place. The main thing that could convince me to remove it would be if its slot is shared with Monothreat as Natdex Monothreat, but I'm not really opposed to giving them separate ones.
- Monothreat
I believe people were too harsh on Chaitanya's post about Monothreat because while extreme, the concerns he raised are valid. As the person who has played the most official threat matches in the community, I definitely know what I am talking about. While you don't need to be a "mainer" or have prior experience with threat to have success, it is true that it does make a difference. Take for example MWP1 where mael, fresh off his OST win (I believe) was playing Monothreat. His season start was very bad, as his builder ima was not familiar with threat and was providing unviable teams. His builds were getting beatdown by some common threat sets because he was not being prepped for them adequately. Later in the season, he started getting support from Zukushiku and he started doing great. This clearly shows that there is a distinction between knowing the metagame and being dedicated to perform in it, and not. Even a great player can flop if they aren't ready for the nature of it. However, that was the case of SM Monothreat. SS is relatively new and changing, so I don't think that learning curve really exists as much. If the manager is buying someone that is invested in doing well in the slot, there really shouldn't be any issue. The rules of threat are straightforward, and its relatively easy to pick up at the stage it's at currently. As for his point about testing, that is also fair. As someone that likes to really test out my ideas, it is definitely a hassle because your options are limited. Also, if you show someone a tech they may end up liking it and using it for themselves (I do this often tbh). Therefore, you are sometimes in the situation where you need to play first before someone else does because they might use your tech and then you need to change your team. This happened in a week of mwp iirc, where two of us used the same tech and then the third guy got screwed because it was obvious by then. However, most Monothreat games aren't purely about secret techs, but do come down to superior play and building. Also, anyone that says threat is 100% mu free has a lack of understanding of it.
As for my stance on Monothreat in a tour, I will 100% back its inclusion. Obviously, I have my personal bias for the metagame but I don't consider myself as a person that would be blinded by that. I don't really hold any stakes since I do not plan on playing in MWP because of how busy I am lately, and if I did it probably wouldn't be threat because of the investment it requires. I support it being included because it is without a doubt Monotype's most popular OM, it has proven to be competitive many times, has players interested in playing it and is generally a pretty enjoyable a format to watch. It can be exciting to see what fresh ideas people pull out. Now whether I support it being Natdex Monothreat is a whole other topic, that I'll address in the next point.
- Natdex Monothreat
Personally, I'm kinda put off the idea of including an OM of an OM. Natdex Monothreat is an OM of Monothreat or of National Dex Monotype, not of Monotype. We should be including metagames directly related to us and that are supported by us. Moreover, why does Monothreat get the special treatment to have Natdex stacked on top of it to remedy potential issues, while other metagames aren't extended that opportunity? However, it's not really a big issue since it's a simple quality fix, so I wouldn't really oppose it greatly. If that is the consensus I see from the prospective player pool, and what other people want, it's not a big deal. As mentioned before, I don't plan on being in the player pool so I don't really have a personal connection to the issue. However, if that change is being made then I stress that also means all official appearances and developments of Monothreat need to be done in a Natdex setting because it would be the main version. MWP is supposed to highlight and include the official version of monothreat, and not the niche one. Also, I'm not too fond of Natdex having two whole slots in the tournament.
- BDSP
The games aren't expected to be transferrable until some point next year, so it's safe to say we can proceed with SS as is. I haven't really thought of the logistics of the type distribution, but BDSP Monotype (aka DPP upgraded for current mechanics like Fairy types, moves, ...) is the only exception to the undeveloped tiers rules I set earlier. It's the only volatile format I'd be willing to consider giving a slot to. However, it's not really a serious consideration, just a "this could be fun...but probably not".
- Retains
Metagames change, retains make no sense. There is no legacies built as well, it messes up the money distribution leading to more buys and its just a hassle. No retains.
Finally, my current formats in no particular order, although possibly subject to change after writing out my thoughts:
Version 1:
- SS
- SS
- SS / SS Bo3
- SM
- ORAS
- BW
- Monothreat / Natdex Monothreat
- Natdex Monotype
Version 2:
- SS
- SS
- SS
- SS
- Oldgen Bo3 (SM/ORAS/BW)
- LC
- Monothreat / Natdex Monothreat
- Natdex Monotype
Version 3:
- SS
- SS
- SS Bo3
- LC / Oldgen Bo3
- Monothreat / Natdex Monothreat
- Natdex Monotype
