Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Since then, PiC and Inh have lost their ladders and PiC has been removed from circuit. OM Leadership wants to have an open discussion about what format OMPL should take this year, including the option of running back the same format as last year.
Some things that are on the table:
> Removing slots
> Replacing existing metas with new ones (e.g. replacing inheritance with shared power, e.g. doing a poll for tiers should be in certain slots)
> Some kind of player vote for metas
> Updating the metas included in bo3
> Doubling up slots
> Adding teams
Some things that are not on the table:
> Including UMs
> Tripling up slots (this does not include bo3)
> Including past gen metas
With those parameters outlined, the floor is now open for discussion and proposals. Surveys and more specific outlines may follow.
Pretty please keep pic in OMPL. We had the best response to balance and enjoyment out of all the tiers in last OMPL and with potential new players like tkhanh and xqiht surely it'll be a hit.
This keeps the focus on the permaladder metas, while including PiC because it had extremely high quality games last PL, high survey stats and a good amount of mainers.
Inheritance's games weren't amazing to be honest, and the tier isnt popular enough to maintain a ladder but lacks the fervent support / quality that PiC has.
As for the doubled slots, both of these tiers were able to successfully host their own Premier Leagues and field 6x3 current gen slots in addition to some of their playerbase being taken by oldgens, so the numbers are clearly there.
Personally I'm not a big fan of Bo3, although I think it could replace one of the BH slots, but in that case I'd argue for BH's inclusion over Stab (that is to say AAA/BH/MnM) I think BH is large enough that it can easily field a 2nd slot, and AAA most certainly can.
so my alternate proposal would be AAA / AAA / BH / Stab / GG / MnM / PiC / Bo3:[AAA/MnM/BH]
keep formats the same imo, worked last year and double slots are kinda ugly. i found inh and pic super interesting to watc( last year so keep them in imo
Something worth considering is flex slots: each team picks one slot from the playable pool of tiers and the MU will feature two of those slots. Example:
Team 1 picks AAA, team 2 picks STAB, now slots are
AAA
AAA
BH
STAB
STAB
MnM
GG
PiC
Incentivizes versatile drafts and makes the tier selection more dynamic, doubling up slots in a more natural way (aka you can assume popular metagames like AAA and BH will still naturally be picked more, but less popular metagames like PiC still provide an advantage when picked)
There are already tours for the more popular metagames to shine on their own. Doubling or tripling up on already highly-represented metagames reduces visibility for less popular OMs that still have potential for metagame growth. I don't agree with the idea that allowing teams to stack OM selection incentivizes versatile drafts; if a team can force 3+ AAA games every round, why spend time branching out for less popular metagames like PiC, GG, or Inh instead of stacking killers for the most popular OMs?
These are 5 pretty free slots to include, leaving us with at least 3 slots to play around with.
PiC: i think I've seen almost unanimous agreement to keep this in OMPL. Not only is it extremely balanced and enjoyable to play, it's fairly viewer friendly and enjoyable to watch, and it has a pretty consistent playerbase. Would be a shame to not see it return.
Doubling slots: AAAPL and HPL have shown that there is enough of a playerbase to support two slots of AAA and BH. I would definitely like to see AAA doubled up, and would also like to see BH doubled up although I think the consensus for that is a bit less.
Inheritance: I don't feel as strongly about inheritance returning - I'm not entirely sure why, it just doesn't feel as strong as the other options on the table. Don't mind it returning though.
Bo3: If Bo3 returns, the tiers it has currently are fine. I'm not sure about it returning though - I think doubling slots is a better option, although this would mean MnM and STAB lose their "second" slot.
Different OM options: Shared Power would be interesting to see in a team tour setting, but I don't know how fun it would be to play and prep for. I can't really think of any options that are sane or popular. If the rumours I hear are true then a spotlight league would be a better option for this anyway.
(e: I am personally biased towards Camomons being included but I am not quite sure it should be included this year - if there was a camo tour with a lot of success I would probably change my mind)
Less slots / more teams: We definitely don't need more teams - 8 is an ideal amount of teams, 10 would be too much I think and would probably require a group stage format for sanity. 8 slots is also pretty good for the size of our community, I think more is too much and less would probably be fine, but also would mean less playing opportunities when we aren't stretched for capacity.
My ideal format - AAA, AAA, BH, GG, STAB, MnM, PiC, (BH or Inh)
One idea I wanted to float to see the general temperature of the room is reducing to six slots but increasing to ten teams.
The main advantages is it focuses on the metas that have historically been more consistent / have more established playerbases / most people seem to support (AAA / BH / STAB / MnM / GG; last slot I was thinking bo3 but could still even be PiC) while not dramatically decreasing the number of players involved (30 games a week vs 32 previously).
The major downsides are fewer metas featured (which I think can be mitigated by a second team tour, especially now that we have a third CA prize to spend on it) and schedule; I admittedly don't know how to make the schedule work without going to nine weeks or running an unbalanced schedule, neither of which is ideal.
I do think it is hard to find three additional slots beyond the circuit five, but don't want to lop off 25% of the games / starters.
Something worth considering is flex slots: each team picks one slot from the playable pool of tiers and the MU will feature two of those slots. Example:
Team 1 picks AAA, team 2 picks STAB, now slots are
AAA
AAA
BH
STAB
STAB
MnM
GG
PiC
Incentivizes versatile drafts and makes the tier selection more dynamic, doubling up slots in a more natural way (aka you can assume popular metagames like AAA and BH will still naturally be picked more, but less popular metagames like PiC still provide an advantage when picked)
i have suggested flex slots as the gimmick for second om team tour but nobody seems to like it fsr
anyways ompl tiers should be the same, this tour (and community rlly) suffers a lot from lack of identity and solidity so I think sticking with the same tiers would be good to establish that, besides nobody dislikes pic or inh
My ideal format - AAA, AAA, BH, GG, STAB, MNM, PiC, Bo3
PiC: At this point it should be obvious based on what the general opinions are in the thread, but I think its relatively unanimous that PiC is a fantastic metagame to watch, adds much needed variety, and was legitimately competitive last OMPL. It absolutely and undeniably deserves to be here in my opinion, no matter what.
Flex Slots: I'm down for them being considered in smaller tours but for OMPL I'd rather there be as little variance as possible to maximize competitiveness.
Inheritance vs AAA (second slot): I think there are two ways to approach this issue. Ideally, if the goal is to maximize competitiveness, I think inheritance should be left off. I don't mean to bash the metagame, but despite having fun supporting the slot in OMPL last year I think the build quality was generally all over the place, everyone seemed to have a different idea of how the metagame ought to be played, and it felt like overall the least competitive slot week in week out from a pure game quality perspective. Add the fact that the playerbase is tiny, and I can't think of any reasons I'd want inheritance to stay outside of my personal biases due to our slot (shoutout Lily the goat) performing great last year. Meanwhile, AAA has a surging playerbase and is relatively easy to pick up for people who are just generally good at mons. Even though I'm not a huge fan of how centralized AAA currently is, to me it more than deserves a second slot in this tournament and we can easily fill a second slot each week with players who deserve to be there.
BH (second slot): BH is imo one of the hardest OMs to pick up. I also firmly believe that all of the people who deserve a chance and grind the metagame will end up at least being picked up for support or given a chance in OMPL currently, as BH in many cases necessitates both a player and a builder being drafted even with only one slot. I don't think this was an issue we had last OMPL, and thus don't think a second BH slot is deserving of much consideration.
Bo3: It is a ton of work and I am sympathetic to that as someone who spent many, many hours helping prep for the slot last OMPL, and felt overwhelmed by how hard it was to try and stay on top of 3 different metagames at the same time. However, it is also incredibly hype and highlights the absolute best part of OMs imo: watching the best players in the community who are good at a few wildly different metagames have unique stylistic matchups into each other. These are by far the most hype matches to watch and some of the best and most competitive games in OMPL came from bo3. Nothing can replace it, and the viewing experience would be significantly worse without it for me.
STAB vs BH in Bo3: I didn't list it elsewhere in this post because I am legitimately undecided between each tier. The best arguments for replacing STAB with BH in my opinion are most of the best OMs players are also the best BH players, making for very competitive games, and the STAB metagame is currently in a very dire spot, with the webs/cheese HO usage through the roof in both majors and OMWC. The biggest downside with BH in the bo3 slot in my opinion are how long the games tend to go and how much more drastic the prep burden is for BH than STAB, making the Bo3 slot which ALREADY had major issues with being difficult to play and build for even more strenuous on the slot. Additionally, because of how much easier to pick up STAB is than BH, there are likely a few incredible OMs players that would be barred from the Bo3 slot due to not being familiar with BH that wouldn't be with STAB, while there are imo 0 players with the opposite problem.
My ideal solution to the final Bo3 slot between STAB and BH is this: wait a bit longer for STAB tiering to catch up, as there are some things currently in the works like a flower trick suspect, and make a game time decision closer to the start of OMPL with a playerbase poll, specifically seeking out and isolating the players that would play or build for Bo3 in OMPL. I don't think the current STAB metagame is well suited to a slot that is meant to be an example of the most competitive, best gameplay the OMs community has to offer, but I want to give the tier a chance to solve its issues before OMPL starts, if only because the inclusion of BH has its own sweeping issues.
16 teams, 1 manager per team, 4 slots (AAA/BH/MNM/STAB)
4 pools of 4
3 week round robin in each pool
top 2 teams of each pool merge together to form 4 bigger teams
3 week round robin, 8 slots (each tier x2)
finals
There is something to be said about many people pointing out Inh's lack of established playerbase. While it is true that currently there arent many seasoned players and the tier still has lots of developing to do, how can it obtain those things if it doesn't get more tournament play? I believe one of OM's strengths is its variety, so I think that Inh should still keep its slot in OMPL over another AAA slot, for example.
Dropping Inheritance: Obviously it's unfortunate to see a metagame dropped from a tournament, especially so when it's a popular one. However, my experience shadow managing in OMPL taught me that Inheritance is simply not a good fit for a team tournament in the current landscape. Inheritance does not have a large enough high-skill player base to justify a slot in a team tour like this, especially when many of the best players we do have are debatably even better in other tiers than they are here. Inheritance is inherently limiting to a draft, as your options are either: A: Spend a large amount of money on one of the few Inheritance mains, B: Buy a clicker and hope for the best, C: Slot a player into Inheritance that you'd much rather slot elsewhere.
Inheritance is beloved by many people, and I don't mean to offend the tier or it's devoted players by advocating for its removal. I do, however, want to see OMPL be the best tournament it can be for as many people as possible, and I believe that means making a sacrifice here. I would also like to note that there are ongoing talks to find a way to represent beloved metagames like Inheritance in some other way and perhaps in a different tournament, but these are nowhere near finalized yet. Just know that if Inheritance is removed for OMPL, that does not mean it is disappearing from tournaments entirely!
Double Slot: There's really only two candidates for a double slot in my mind, AAA and BH. Both tiers have proven themselves more than able to field 2 players per team, looking at tournaments like AAAPL and HPL. If this question was posed a few years ago, I think BH would easily get the double slot. Times have changed though, and AAA's player base has simply outgrown BH and fielded more tournament-level players. I heavily disagree with the idea that BH is too hard to get into, and find accessibility arguments like that a waste of time. Players have time and time again proven themselves able to get into and love the tier with some dedication, and I think people's personal biases play heavily into their perception of the metagame and its place in tournaments. AAA should get priority for the double slot, with BH also receiving one should a space open up.
PiC: PiC was near universally loved by players, managers, and spectators last year, and any issues regarding the specificity of PiC players in a draft plan are hugely negated by not having to draft a second highly specific player for Inheritance. Dropping PiC is a nonstarter to me. There is of course the issue that testing teams/ideas becomes much harder without a ladder, but I think the player base is large enough and dedicated enough to make the slot competitive even without a ladder.
8 slots vs 6 slots: There's 5 slots that are very easy to pick. AAA, STABmons, Mix and Mega, Godly Gift, and Balanced Hackmons. From there, there is two slots that both have plenty of merit, PiC and Bo3. Both of these slots are beloved by spectators and players alike. Granted, they're both slightly more specific than the other options in terms of accessibility, but I do not think the difference is large enough that accessibility is a real negative factor against either of them. Having to sacrifice one of these slots is a nonstarter. I would rather all 7 beloved slots maintain their place going forward than see one of these cut.
10 slots is obviously not a discussion, completely infeasible and trying to reach it would just lead to lower quality slots. 6 slots is like viable but generally in terms of tournament "hype" its worse I think, see AAAPL, notably it feels easier to reach 3-3 and in general its less capability to actually distinguish matchup results. 6 slots also likely leads to more teams which leads to an extended tour. 8 slots 8 teams is most proven and consistent and I don't think this should change unless absolutely necessary, and I do think we have the capability to hit 8 fairly good slots.
In terms of specific slot lineups, I personally like the following 3 + 1, in order of my own preference.
A. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + Inh Bo3 (AAA/BH/MnM) B. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA BH C. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA Bo3 (AAA/BH/MnM) D. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA Bo3 (BH/MnM/STAB) (Courtesy of UT)
As people have already discussed, 5 circuit metas are locked in, and PiC has all the support it needs to be included as well. This leaves 2 free slots.
On Bo3. As one can tell, I strongly believe that BH should replace STAB in it. There are several reasons I think that BH is (relatively objectively) a better fit in Bo3 than STAB.
1. Raw activity.
Bo3's default should be the 3 largest OMs, BH sits comfortably at number 2 in plays and thread activities with the other 3 circuit metas not even coming close, STAB has the least plays by far of the 5 circuit metas at around 1/3 of MnM/GG. BH's active playerbase is large enough to support ~5 slots in HPL which the same cannot be said about STAB (arguably the number of mains is like concerning but kind of off-topic). Just by this basis BH's inclusion within Bo3, even independently of being in over STAB, should not even be a question.
2. Players
A commonly used argument against BH is that there is less players capable of playing [AAA/BH/MnM] than [AAA/MnM/STAB], and thus will result in less signups for the slot. I don't think this is particularly strong because even if STAB's inclusion likely leads to more players capable of playing all 3 (as regardless of how the tier is it is easier to just get a team and click), the Bo3 slot's identity has long been the most competitive slot between the best OM players. Such "best OM players" should already be proficient in all OMs, and indeed if we look at the top circuit scorers, Sammy Ivar RoFnA QT pannu TTTech damflame all are proficient in BH and actually started in HPL, and of the remaining excluding a few that don't particularly play either tier (and are extremely unlikely to be slotted in Bo3) they are generally still capable of playing BH well despite being better at STAB or are relatively equal in both. The only standout ones are abriel, and arguably Kinetic, based on Opens/SSNL results. If one were to use last OMPL's Bo3 players and claim that a sizable portion do not play BH at all, this is a highly flawed argument since that Bo3 slot was STAB over BH, but also several players that could be slotted into it were playing in other slots (e.g. Ivar QT TTTech).
Regarding preps, BH prep can definitely be more challenging and time-consuming, but consider that this is within the context of OMPL, a team tournament. A team already is having a BH starter that is capable of assisting in the prep, and BH's playerbase is sizable enough where there are a fairly reasonable number of players with enough qualities to be picked up as secondary BH support that can also help this, something that tends to happen anyways due to the nature of the tier. This sizable playerbase also means that even with some of the top players being in Bo3 slot instead the BH slot itself is capable of performing at high quality.
Thus, overall having BH in Bo3 instead doesn't actually significantly change the Bo3 player pool or the strength of it, and if anything a majority of these top OM players are some of the strongest BH players. So, the overall quality of the matchups doesn't actually diminish, the players are going to be excellent at either tier, which leads me to the next point.
3. Tier quality
Being as objective as I can, BH is currently in a better state than STAB, and this is not just due to me being a BH main, people that I've talked to that are not as biased as me, even ones that play STAB but not BH, have expressed concerns about STAB's current state. On the contrary, BH's meta has been stable for months now, and while there are differing opinions on subjects like flexibility of building, recent survey results have indicated general satisfaction with enjoyability and competitiveness. I don't want to be too critical here but just watching recent Majors games there is a pretty unreasonably high usage of webs and other setup spam HO teams, which has also been covered by other people in this thread.
While pyu raises a point on how with sufficient tiering action it can try to resolve some issues, aggressive tiering action also can destabilize the meta leading into OMPL which can always lead to more cheese and matchup, and also despite significant changes in councils I personally haven't seen much actual concentrated discussion on issues, and tiering plans or council opinions aren't super transparent either.
Also regarding game time, I don't think this should be a point against BH? Understandably BH games lasting much longer than STAB makes the Bo3 set longer but BH games taking longer is just because BH is balance-focused while STAB is HO-focused, I feel like the nature of the tier shouldn't be used in deciding what tiers end up in the Bo3, I don't think Bo3 tiers in like other PLs has used this as a point for/against anything. Game length is also more dependent on the players in question, from Championship Playoffs we see that fast clickers like QT vs Fc can get even a relatively high turn count BH game done incredibly fast. If a series takes long it is often due to one or both of the players so they should be used to playing long games/series.
A. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + Inh Bo3 (AAA/BH/MnM) B. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA BH C. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA Bo3 (AAA/BH/MnM) D. AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + AAA Bo3 (BH/MnM/STAB) (Courtesy of UT)
Thus A is my most preferred format, with the same tiers as last year but changing the Bo3 slots.
B takes a different approach than Bo3 to represent the two largest OMs, both tiers have showed they can support multiple current gen slots through their individual PLs. This one is forced to cut out Bo3 though.
C is A but replacing Inh with AAA (or B but replacing BH with Bo3). I'm not super attached to Inheritance, it is a rather unique meta that can be quite interesting but it definitely has playerbase issues while not boasting the same uniqueness and enjoyability as PiC. And playerbase is a genuine issue by just looking at the inheritour signups, 14 compared to 21 in the previous year. The main issue with this format is triple AAA representation. Bo3 isn't exactly it though so I think its doable, and compared to B I think theres a pretty large overlap between the BH and Bo3 w/ BH pool anyways for one of the slots.
D is something UT proposed as a joke I think but I don't actually think it seems that bad. You give AAA the double representation, and then you prevent the triple appearance by having it not be present in Bo3, which also resolves the "what to put in Bo3". I can see this being more favourable depending on the state of STAB nearing OMPL start.
Other comments
I don't think a player vote for certain slots is particularly necessary? People that actually care about what is featured should let their opinions be heard through this thread anyways and if they cba to make a post then like lol?
If there's a choice between Inheritance and Shared Power I lean Inheritance. Granted I'm rather unfamiliar with SP I think Inh still has edge due to more tournament exposure (has SP had a recent tournament?) easier to get into and I'm going to ignorantly assume better balance. Any other tier I don't think is remotely close to being considered.
I don't think AAA BH MnM STAB GG PiC + BH Bo3 (AAA/MnM/STAB) is a great idea. If you are going to double up on BH you kind of are obligated to double up on AAA as it is just larger, and even ignoring that I don't think there is actually sufficiently high enough quality playerbase to support 2 BH slots AND the Bo3, since as mentioned before there's a fair share of top BH players that might end up needing to play Bo3. Not entirely unviable format, but there are several better options.
I think twists like flex slots, as well as the other less proven tiers are better suited to be discussed for the 2nd major OM team tour, as OMPL is supposed to be the highest level OM tour and so having a fixed format seems more stable and competitive.
Firstly I have some strong opinions about some about keeping number of slots in the tour at 8 or above. Having big teamcords when possible is a really fun aspect of the tours from my experience and limiting the slots to 6 cuts away at this aspect while also introducing other problems like killing off investment in a match as it's decided relatively quickly. The only issue I've heard with bigger teams is "it's not fun to face someone with 32 people prepping them" but this is a large exaggeration in the difference it actually makes and I've never had an issue with this (how would I even know as a player or builder?) not that a lower amount of slots would even help with this issue since you consolidate prep into those slots anyway as the tour progresses and teams get knocked out.
As for the current format, I think it is fine to retain the past format generally as-is, that is AAA, BH, MnM, GG, STAB, Inh, PiC and Bo3. Yes I would love to shill double AAA but it would most likely lead to kicking out metas that seem fairly well received which is never particularly ideal. I actually wouldn't mind to see Bo3 kick the bucket I don't know if people actually love it particularly with the extra prep required but it would seem pretty weird to kick out only Bo3 for a double slot imo and fitting in double BH would kick out Inheritance which does seem sad. My only concern is that both Inheritance and PiC without any other tours or support now its ladder is dead would have decaying playerbases and development compared to other metas here but since the change was relatively recent and their playerbases seems relatively intact I don't mind either meta staying in with what I can perceive as a fairly good reception to both metas from their communities.
The only difference I support with going through is changing the Bo3 slots from AAA/MnM/STAB -> AAA/MnM/BH. BH is as far as I can tell in an objectively healthier state than STAB in practically every single metric and is basically the 2nd flagship tier of the section alongside AAA. The last PL it had with 3 SV slots (and oldgens also eating at the playercount) was as far as I can tell a great success while STAB is struggling greatly with the state of the meta to the point of the council practically entirely quitting and being overhauled which doesn't seem ideal for more representation in what is basically the flagship competitive tour of the entire section. I can get some concerns about BH being annoying to get into while STAB is easier generally to "plug and play" but this is OMPL and it's not like BH is some uncompetitive tier with zero tour exposure. There are plenty of good multi-meta players who also play BH because unsurprisingly BH is an important and large tier in this section and I've never personally never had trouble entering BH myself. Other issues with prep are hard to qualify since I'm not a very well-versed player in either metas but given BH has shown itself to have a large pool of players to work with I think finding people to help with prep with the extra slot would be substantially easier than STAB. It was admittedly annoying in OMWC as it harder to work with the limited pool with no CA and region-lock but this is the flagship tour of the section with a CA so I don't forsee this issue popping up to the same degree if at all. A survey can be held among the top players in championships or whatever but kicking out the other flagship tier from representation that is basically in every way in a healthier state than STAB at the moment would be pretty sad to see for me.
pannu is right, OMPL has had 5 different tier formats across the past 6 occurrences. There's no sense of identity. I think that as well as deciding on this year's format we should also take the time to decide on a status quo we can fall back on for future OMPLs as a default.
I think the best option is as follows:
Slot 1 through ? - Circuit tiers
Slot ? through ? - OMotM style nomination thread followed by a community survey.
Slot 8 - BO3 (AAA, MNM, STAB)
The To Be Announced slots allow us to keep the flexibility we currently have for changing up tiers but also standardises the process such that we don't have a yearly tradition of what is essentially walking a very thin line between criticism and metabashing. I like PIC, I want it to be in this year's OMPL, but it doesn't have the same multi-generational legacy that the others tiers have and its removal from circuit is evidence enough of that. People in this thread have made it pretty clear it's going to be in, I just don't want its inclusion to be quite as standardised as the circuit tiers.
Frankly I have no idea what the remaining tier should be. A third AAA slot (including BO3) feels like too much. Inverse? Shared Power? Camomons? Can we bring back ZU or NFE? If I'm being honest we're probably going to stick with PIC + Inheritance but I think having a community survey on the two remaining tiers is a good way to gather objective data on which tiers have the most interest right now while also highlighting tiers that might deserve a chance in a tour environment that they'll otherwise struggle to get.
The alternative to this would be to scrap one of the TBA slots and BO3 in favour of a second slot of both AAA and BH, but frankly I think that'd be a huge shame. The BO3 slot is hype, challenging but not gruelling to prep for, rewards good drafts and provides a unique viewing experience that the other slots lack. If we do go down this route then I think both AAA and BH are obvious picks as they're the two largest tiers in terms of activity and playerbase. BO3 is a different story though and the stats don't lie.
I took the OMPL XII sign-up sheet and filtered it to only show users who had a clear indication towards either STAB or BH:
Possible signup increase from swapping to BH: 1
There was ONE user who Preferred AAA and MNM and would not play STAB.
Likely signup increase from swapping to BH: 1
There was ONE user who Preferred AAA, MNM, and BH, and would not play STAB.
Possible signup loss from swapping to BH: 3
There was ONE user who Preferred AAA and MNM and would not play BH.
there were TWO users who signed up for AAA, MNM, and STAB (but not BO3) and would not play BH.
Likely signup loss from swapping to BH: 16 There were SIXTEEN users who signed up for BO3 and would not play BH (binding).
That's 19-2 total in favour of STAB if we use last year's PL signups as an indicator.
In last year's circuit, Grand Slam concluded with 20 players reaching 10 points or more. Of these, only three people chose not to participate in STAB open, while there were 8 who did not enter BH Open. This drops down to 1 for STAB and 4 for BH if you limit it to the 16 people who got 10+ points from the potential BO3 tiers alone (this is still 25% of the statistically best picks for a BO3 slot).
No, these stats aren't perfect, but they're the best we have.
I feel like there's a lot of recency bias here; STAB is recovering from being in the worst state it's been in all gen, while BH is arguably the best it's been this gen. I understand why people would use this to push for BH's inclusion over STAB but STAB is hardly unplayable right now and I think having consistency here is more important than swapping tiers out with every meta fluctuation or we'll be having this dance every single year. BH is historically the most disliked tier among multi-tier players, and this is consistent across every metagame. It has a lot of shooters which is why it's a clear favourite if we go down the "2 AAA / 2 ???" route, but there's too much focus on whether or not BH is accessible when the more important detail is that it's not accessed. People don't want to access it. As far as I'm concerned STAB shouldn't be removed from BO3 unless it's at risk of losing its ladder and/or circuit status.
I addressed partially in Discord but I'm going to expand on it here because I think stats look very flashy but are very flawed and not indicative of much.
First of all, using signup stats from last OMPL, who's signups opened after Bo3 slot was confirmed to have STAB over BH, naturally means you are going to have many players that signup and not play BH obviously. But this is a minor point.
The main point is that this number of signups means literally nothing when it comes to the actual players in the Bo3 slot. The provided stats also do not give the full information regarding this.
Consider the 16 people that were stated to have signed up for Bo3 but blocked BH. Of these 16, only 5 (temp, Maybca, SpaceSpeakers, matte, Mossy Sandwich), were drafted, and of these 5 only Maybca has played 1 game in the Bo3 slot (week 7 over normal start RoFnA), none of the others were slotted in Bo3 ever.
In fact, of the 14 players last OMPL that were slotted into Bo3 for more than 1 week (shiloh abriel rofna ivar fiora stresh qt clas career kinetic potatochan ghostlike jrdn sammy), only 5 of these actually signed up for Bo3 (shiloh fiora clas kinetic sammy), of which 2 also signed up for BH (clas fiora), and the remaining 3 did not block BH, then excluding the 6 managers (abriel rofna ivar stresh qt career), the remaining 3 (potatochan ghostlike jrdn), potatochan didn't block BH or STAB (and actually was slotted into BH for >1 weeks), ghostlike didnt block BH but actually blocked STAB, while jrdn did block BH didn't block STAB but blocked MnM.
What this means is that the stats that were brought up regarding number of signups and the number of signups who don't play BH is completely irrelevant to who is actually playing in the Bo3 slot. The players playing in Bo3 are not just anyone who can play all 3 tiers, but the best OM players that are excellent at ALL the tiers in Bo3. Thus, in all objectiveness, the tiers in Bo3 should not be decided by how many total players "can" play the combination, but in fact just be the 3 largest tiers, and this should especially be the case when additionally comparing the current states between the two tiers. This ensures that the most competitive and "hype" slot in OMPL has the largest and most competitive tiers.
The stats don't lie, the people that signup for Bo3 are mostly not the players playing Bo3, and the players that signup for Bo3 and don't play BH are definitely not the players playing Bo3. Nearly all the players playing Bo3, excluding managers, are players that DO play every tier and do not block any tiers.
Thus, in all objectiveness, the tiers in Bo3 should not be decided by how many total players "can" play the combination, but in fact just be the 3 largest tiers
Agreeing with Schpoonman, I don't like 2x of any Tiers (Bo3 is alright since it's across communities).
It feels like it goes against the spirit of OMs - to be a whole community of what-ifs in Pokemons - instead of separated into their own communities. I understand AAA and BH are more popular, but they already have a dedicated team tour for them. I think it would be better to show some less popular Tiers some tournament spotlight at least once a year.
After discussion among forum mods and taking the input from this thread, the format for OMPL XIII will be:
Almost Any Ability 1
Almost Any Ability 2
Balanced Hackmons
Godly Gift
Partners in Crime
Mix and Mega
STABmons
Best of Three
Because most of the bo3 discussion assumed AAA was getting one of the slots, with the decision to go with two AAA slots, we want to continue the bo3 discussion to determine which three of BH / GG / MnM / PiC / STAB should be included. The poll is non-binding, but will help inform our decision greatly.
double post but it doesn't count because the above is an announcement. This post does not reflect the opinions of OM Staff at large nor does it reflect the opinions of my fellow OMPL hosts.
My ideal Bo3 is Balanced Hackmons, Mix and Mega, and STABmons.
BH in Bo3 has been pretty controversial. There's a reasonable argument to exclude it that does bring up some good points, namely that total Bo3 signups risk going down if BH is included. Greybaum's post did some cool nerd analysis about it, pointing out that 16 Bo3 signups would not (binding) play BH last year, with 19 finding BH less preferable to other alternatives. This would be a significant cut to signups, yes, but I don't think the numbers tell the full story.
BH is our second largest metagame. It carried multiple hugely entertaining and, more importantly, competitive slots in HPL I, it consistently gets the second most plays out of any ladder, and BH roomtours are more often than not among our most popular ones in the OM Room. We are not starving for BH players at all, and even less so for competent secondaries who can play in Bo3! Just from the numbers perspective alone, it's simply unfair for BH not to get representation here.
Looking just at the final weeks of HPL, we see a ton of common, skilled Bo3 players doing well: Sammy, pannu, QT, ghostlike, damflame, tttech, AM, akira, rofna, the list goes on and on. Our bo3 players and many of the rising stars who you can easily imagine being slotted in this year are by and large present here, and many of the ones that aren't are in majors and performing well in their BH games. Which brings me to my main point: If the total signups for Bo3 go down (which isn't even guaranteed), but the slot remains largely entertaining, competitive, and balanced with many of our star players still enjoying it, then is there really any harm done? Why should a number on a spreadsheet take precedence over treating our metagames with the respect they deserve and over the quality of the games themselves?
A lot of people's hesitancy with including BH in bo3 comes from this idea that, because BH doesn't resemble our existing metagames or has a learning curve, that it doesn't belong, and that sentiment has harmed the community a lot. It's created infighting over if BH is "too difficult to learn" or "accessible enough" to the point where we had to ban that type of discussion in the OM Discord, and that sentiment has discouraged players from even giving the tier a shot. It's time to look beyond that sentiment and give it a test run. If BH is truly too inaccessible, doesn't field enough Bo3 signups, or just not fun for the players, then we'll have learned and know not to try this again. We can't know that until we give it a shot though, and I have faith that BH is not only conducive to an incredible bo3 slot but will actually be an improvement over last year.
As for why MnM and STAB, they're just the next in line by size and people generally enjoy playing them. no shade to pic or gg but we just can't fit you in this lineup :p
