Potential Changes to WCoP

Status
Not open for further replies.

ABR

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
OU Leader
#1
Please note that what I'm about to say is a proposal, not an official declaration of a new ruleset.

The TD team has been discussing potential changes to WCoP, and I'd like to gauge the community's opinion on this. The main changes are as follows:
1) Removing all old "grandfathered" eligibilities up to this point
2) Removing the ability for continental teams to take rejects from subset teams (example: a player rejected from Germany cannot play for Europe)
3) Using the following map for U.S. teams: https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/8577-figure-1.png

To elaborate on 1, this means that for 2018 WCoP everyone would be treated as a new signup, not already on a team. There is nothing set in stone yet for how far back we'd look at IPs, but everything will be decided on a case by case basis nonetheless. If you fairly get on a team in 2018, you will always be allowed to remain on said team for as long as you wish, regardless of IP changes.

For 2, this also applies to Brazil in LA, France Spain Germany Italy Greece UK in Europe, and a theoretical India / Bangladesh in Asia. The reason for this is that it would be unfair for teams like Europe to go beyond its borders and get players who just aren't in synch with the country teams. A player rejected from US West doesn't have a second option so a player from France should not either.

3 is pretty self explanatory and has been discussed in the past. Many people find the current US teams to be imbalanced / illogically split, so census regions is the only real alternative.

Also keep in mind that challenging teams (IE: India last year) don't get the exclusive rights to players from that region, as such an Indian player in 2018 could decide between playing for India or Asia, if India were to make it in to WCoP then future Indian players would be bound to India though.

If you have any praises, questions, or concerns please state them in this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
UU & Tour Head
#2
To clarify #2, what it essentially would be saying is that no team can include another team's jurisdiction within its borders. No one who lives in a single place should theoretically qualify for multiple teams (as is currently the case for players in, say, Brazil or France). The only time someone should qualify for multiple teams is if they legitimately can claim to live in two different locations (such as in the case of people who live in one location and go to school in another).

So, Team Europe wouldn't really be Europe, but rather a specifically drawn map that happens to include all the countries not currently encompassed by other teams. Someone who lives in France would not be allowed to choose between playing for Team France and Team Europe unless they, for example, lived in both France and Switzerland (in which case they'd have a legit claim to either team).

I think #3 is long overdue. The way the US map was drawn up has never made sense to me, and switching to census regions is both more immediately easier to understand from an outside perspective (as opposed to previously where players from Detroit, Boston and Miami were all considered part of the same team, while players from Camden or NYC or Buffalo were not) and divides the US in a more equitable way. And I think removing grandfathering is of course necessary with these changes - with new teams and new boundaries, we should have a fresh slate. Otherwise we'll just be seeing the same teams we've seen for the past several years despite these shifts.
 

Isa

DUDE, what a RUSH!
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
#3
will this have any impact on how continental teams handle signups from countries that are aiming to form a regional team? i.e., if someone were to make team sweden and enter the qualifying rounds, would i be forced to join it?

other than that, i approve all of these changes. brave decision by the tds but definitely the right one
 

Nails

Color Synergy
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a defending SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
#4
um excuse you i don't want to play on a team with finchinator

as a serious reply, if you think it's weird that a person from detroit and boston can be on the same team i think it's weird that a guy from dc can be on the same team as a guy from houston. the regions are probably a little skewed in east's favor but i think most of us east's success is just the amount of effort put into the tour and the experience we all have because we enjoy playing world cup with each other.. in essence east is being broken up for playing the tour too well, and i don't think it's simply because we were dealt a good hand of top players. world cup is a dynasty tournament, and keeping continuity/continuing to stick around and grow with your teammates over multiple years is precisely the point of the tour. i've made lifelong friends over the past 7 years and coming back for world cup every year, and, to go back to my original point, "i don't want to play on a team with finchinator".

edit: finch would be on east with this change so i'd be safe but i hope that doesn't distract from the point i was attempting to make
 
#5
proposal 2:

i see the point of this, because you want to stop players from countries whose teams they deem bad to be able to join their continental team. however, i think what could be added onto this rule is that continental teams have the priority in picking a player if that player's country is a team that didn't play in the last addition of the WCoP.

An example would be: Player A is from Norway, Norway are a newly formed team for this edition of the WCoP. Europe gets the priority pick over Norway.

i think this would be fair since players aren't necessarily defecting away from their country's team by forcing them to not pick them, and joining the continental team in the process.

the map looks great. and im all for removal of the grandfather eligibilities if they're reviewed on a case by case basis. my question is, is there any criteria other than IP that will factor in during these reviews?
 
#6
I think it's worth considering a different approach to fixing USA division in World Cup. For a tournament based around regional representation, it's always seemed a little questionable for one country to have four (and at one point five) teams in what is merely a 16-team tournament. In the past this might have been necessary to make up numbers due to the smaller global playerbase, but as we saw last year, we now have a decent number of different teams vying for a spot in the tournament. With Bangladesh, India, and theoretical Benelux, China, and Middle East teams, it's not entirely unrealistic to fill a World Cup tournament with just one USA team participating.

Now I'm not suggesting we actually cut down to just one, as I realise the size of the American playerbase justifies representation larger than that of other regions. However, cutting wider representation from other regions to keep USA at 25% of the tournament is pushing things a little too far. My suggestion is splitting the USA into two teams: East and West. This split is common in many American-heavy competitive fields and would allow Smogon's World Cup to branch out more while continuing to cater to its core playerbase. The East and West teams, both former winners of the tour, would also get to keep their history and lineage this way. I heard that the current strength of US East was not a factor in OP's proposed change, so the slight buff that my proposal would give them shouldn't be a huge deal so long as it's beneficial to the tournament overall.

Agree with the other proposed changes, although, with change #2 I think TDs should be careful with teams dropping out. Africa and Middle East caused a lot of controversy last year by doing this, and leaders of teams perceived to be of lower quality could try doing something similar in future to allow their biggest names to move to more successful teams.
 

ABR

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
OU Leader
#7
will this have any impact on how continental teams handle signups from countries that are aiming to form a regional team? i.e., if someone were to make team sweden and enter the qualifying rounds, would i be forced to join it?

other than that, i approve all of these changes. brave decision by the tds but definitely the right one
proposal 2:

i see the point of this, because you want to stop players from countries whose teams they deem bad to be able to join their continental team. however, i think what could be added onto this rule is that continental teams have the priority in picking a player if that player's country is a team that didn't play in the last addition of the WCoP.

An example would be: Player A is from Norway, Norway are a newly formed team for this edition of the WCoP. Europe gets the priority pick over Norway.

i think this would be fair since players aren't necessarily defecting away from their country's team by forcing them to not pick them, and joining the continental team in the process.

the map looks great. and im all for removal of the grandfather eligibilities if they're reviewed on a case by case basis. my question is, is there any criteria other than IP that will factor in during these reviews?
To both of you and to anyone else concerned with newly formed teams:

Challenger teams, or those that were not a part of last years tournament (made it through the qualifying stage at least), will not affect other eligibilities in any way shape or form. Sweden could only lock you, Isa, if they were in the tournament last year. If Sweden makes a team and makes the top 16 in 2018, then only 2019 players signing up for the first time from Sweden would be locked to Sweden.

Analytic, what you outlined was already implied but it wasn't written so thank you for bringing it up.
 

Steven Snype

Kunclord Supreme
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
#8
Challenger teams, or those that were not a part of last years tournament (made it through the qualifying stage at least), will not affect other eligibilities in any way shape or form. Sweden could only lock you, Isa, if they were in the tournament last year. If Sweden makes a team and makes the top 16 in 2018, then only 2019 players signing up for the first time from Sweden would be locked to Sweden.
This is inconsistent when all other grandfathering would be removed in point 1.
 

ABR

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
OU Leader
#9
This is inconsistent when all other grandfathering would be removed in point 1.
I said "up to this point", meaning that 2018 is a clean slate. At the moment there are remnants of old eligibilities that wouldn't fly today, but are being kept in due to grandfathering. If you get onto a team in a fair way in 2018, then you can remain on that team as long as you wish. 2018 would be seen as the first WCoP with "real eligibility rules."
 

Steven Snype

Kunclord Supreme
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
#10
I said "up to this point", meaning that 2018 is a clean slate. At the moment there are remnants of old eligibilities that wouldn't fly today, but are being kept in due to grandfathering. If you get onto a team in a fair way in 2018, then you can remain on that team as long as you wish. 2018 would be seen as the first WCoP with "real eligibility rules."
If we allow for grandfathering now and expect a WCoP where teams are able to change, it is fairly likely for us to be having a similar amount of grandfathered elements in a few years and probably be another issue to revisit again. I think you should only permit players to only play for either superset team or subset team at the point the new team announces their contention, removing their ability to have that choice on location. I don't see another option that leads to the community not revisiting this inconsistency a few years down the line.
 
#11
I'd like to preface this by saying that since this potential new ruleset would affect me, this post can easily be seen as self-serving, but hopefully the points I make will be considered in an objective manner.

If your goal with point 1 is to weed out the remaining old shady eligibilities, I really do not see why a complete clean slate is necessary. Why can't 'removing all old grandfathered eligibilities up to this point' just be exactly that? Simply remove the people who stayed on their respective teams through the grandfather clause, and that's it. Why would we remove the team lock for previous strong eligibilities on their respective teams? That seems incredibly unfair to me towards players like myself who have been on a team via 100% proper means for years and formed a chemistry with said team only to kicked off by the next of this tournament's yearly revisions. If the US teams are going to completely change, then sure it can be a clean slate for them, but for the teams from last WCoP that will remain in this year's tournament, I don't think any former strong eligibilities should have to worry about being removed from their team.

In fact, it was promised in 2016 that players with 2 strong eligibilities would remain locked onto the team they choose:

On... Continental teams

This rules applies to continental teams. If a player has 2 strong elegibilities, one of those being a continental team (this is the case for people from Spain, Italy, Germany, France and UK), then the regional team has preference over the continental team. For example, a french player can only join team Europe if team France does not want him.

Note that a player will not be able to switch from the regional team to the continental team in the next Wcop, or from the continental team to the regional team, unless the strong elegibility the player is using changes. For example, if a french player played last year in team France and this year is moving to Italy, he can would be elegible to play in team France (weak elegibility), in team Italy (strong elegibility) and in team Europe (strong elegibility). However if the he played in team Europe, he is locked in that team, because his strong elegibility did not change.

~ M Dragon
It would be easy to say something like 'I wasn't a part of the TD team back then', but it would be extremely worrying for the players if that is an excuse to completely ignore things former TDs have said, especially considering the TD turnover rate this site has. I see this as the same as the promise that 'if you get onto a team in a fair way in 2018, then you can remain on that team as long as you wish'. If in the future, team new zealand qualifies for WCoP, and later on a new TD team decides that a new reboot is necessary, would people from new zealand on team oceania then be forced to switch as well?

You can do as you please with the shady grandfathering of former 'weak' eligibilities, but people who joined their team as a strong eligibility should never be forced off their team. If the team locks don't stay for whatever reason, perhaps the grandfather clause being amended to only grandfather in previous strong eligibilities would be acceptable too, but I don't see a reason either way to throw the old team locks out of the window.
 

ABR

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
OU Leader
#12
I'd like to preface this by saying that since this potential new ruleset would affect me, this post can easily be seen as self-serving, but hopefully the points I make will be considered in an objective manner.

If your goal with point 1 is to weed out the remaining old shady eligibilities, I really do not see why a complete clean slate is necessary. Why can't 'removing all old grandfathered eligibilities up to this point' just be exactly that? Simply remove the people who stayed on their respective teams through the grandfather clause, and that's it. Why would we remove the team lock for previous strong eligibilities on their respective teams? That seems incredibly unfair to me towards players like myself who have been on a team via 100% proper means for years and formed a chemistry with said team only to kicked off by the next of this tournament's yearly revisions. If the US teams are going to completely change, then sure it can be a clean slate for them, but for the teams from last WCoP that will remain in this year's tournament, I don't think any former strong eligibilities should have to worry about being removed from their team.

In fact, it was promised in 2016 that players with 2 strong eligibilities would remain locked onto the team they choose:



It would be easy to say something like 'I wasn't a part of the TD team back then', but it would be extremely worrying for the players if that is an excuse to completely ignore things former TDs have said, especially considering the TD turnover rate this site has. I see this as the same as the promise that 'if you get onto a team in a fair way in 2018, then you can remain on that team as long as you wish'. If in the future, team new zealand qualifies for WCoP, and later on a new TD team decides that a new reboot is necessary, would people from new zealand on team oceania then be forced to switch as well?

You can do as you please with the shady grandfathering of former 'weak' eligibilities, but people who joined their team as a strong eligibility should never be forced off their team. If the team locks don't stay for whatever reason, perhaps the grandfather clause being amended to only grandfather in previous strong eligibilities would be acceptable too, but I don't see a reason either way to throw the old team locks out of the window.
I am not speaking for the TD team as a whole now, just myself.

The original idea of removing all grandfathered eligibilities is actually a lot less appealing now than when it was first suggested. I fully agree with your points and admit the fault of my arguments above.
 

Lavos

keeper of the ledger
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris the 4th Smogon Classic Winneris a Past WCoP Champion
#14
First impressions: these are great changes, and ones that needed to happen. WCoP is my favorite tournament on Smogon, but it's one that has been flawed for a long time, and most of those flaws have stemmed from the counterintuitive way we split up the US. Now each region looks truly formidable. West gains a handful of states and loses nothing in the process. Midwest, Northeast, and South have more of a challenge ahead of them, since they need to assemble cohesive rosters from the splinters of East, Central, and in NE's case Metro. However, if my knowledge of the playerbase is accurate, none of them will be lacking in talent. The struggle will come in mixing together new personalities and fostering a real team spirit instead of a mere roster of individuals. This is a bold move by the TDs and will undoubtedly ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think in a few years we'll be feeling the positive effects.

My obvious, selfish concern is the blank slate on eligibility. Void already made some great points here. I lived in Idaho from 2012 to 2017 and played on West all 6 years, they're the only team I've ever been on. I moved to Maryland this summer for school, but under the new rules I'd be forced to play for South, so I hope this "case-by-case basis" is taken seriously, and legitimate lifetime players aren't ripped away from their teams

Also, one nitpick - the team names "Northeast" and "Midwest" don't exactly roll off the tongue. Why not East>NE and North>MW? Then we'd have US North, South, East, and West. I know players from Kansas might not think of themselves as Northerners but it does create a nice unifying theme of the cardinal directions for American team names!

What would be the stance on a country's territories vs their geographic location? Thinking of Puerto Rico and Guam as examples for US.
Hopefully Puerto Rico would be South and Guam would be West, since those regions are nearest to the territories' respective locations and also contain the most people from those territories. By this logic, a place like French Guiana would be part of Team France instead of Latin America.
 
#15
I wanted to respond to Lavos about purely formalities with naming. Where I go to school there are plenty of people from Kansas/Chicago/Wisconsin — they would all say they are from the midwest as opposed to the north. As far as northeast, saying east still implies states like Florida / Georgia / Carolinas. People know where Boston is, but my friends from Connecticut tell foreigners they are from the Northeast part of the states when they get asked.

tl;dr Keep the new names.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#16
Is the goal of the new 4 US regions to have equal populations? The "South" Census region is huge: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=growth

Northeast - 17.3%
Midwest - 20.9%
West - 23.8%
South - 38%

Obviously the old 4 US teams didn't approximate a 4-way split either. But is that actually an important goal of the switch now? If so, it doesn't do it very well.
 

Nails

Color Synergy
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a defending SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
#17
Is the goal of the new 4 US regions to have equal populations? The "South" Census region is huge: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=growth

Northeast - 17.3%
Midwest - 20.9%
West - 23.8%
South - 38%

Obviously the old 4 US teams didn't approximate a 4-way split either. But is that actually an important goal of the switch now? If so, it doesn't do it very well.
i wasn't joking i really do think it's weird that maryland and texas are in the same region
 

ABR

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending SPL Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
OU Leader
#18
Just for a general update,

This topic has not been forgotten by TDs. As to not shift focus from SPL and because it's not insanely time sensitive at the moment, discussion on this has pretty much been on hold. That being said, you can expect a conclusion to be reached in the first 1-2 weeks after SPL is over.
 
#19
re: Eligibility

The TD team has decided to use Census Regions to divide the US teams in WCoP. This means that all US signups will be considered 'fresh' without any previous ties to the newly established US regions. Hogg elaborated on our reasoning behind this decision earlier in this thread.

The way the US map was drawn up has never made sense to me, and switching to census regions is both more immediately easier to understand from an outside perspective (as opposed to previously where players from Detroit, Boston and Miami were all considered part of the same team, while players from Camden or NYC or Buffalo were not) and divides the US in a more equitable way.
The grandfather clause, however, won't be removed as a whole. While it was originally brought forward as a point of discussion in the OP, the argument Void brought forward in his response makes a lot of sense and the TD team agrees with it fully.

Why would we remove the team lock for previous strong eligibilities on their respective teams? That seems incredibly unfair to me towards players like myself who have been on a team via 100% proper means for years and formed a chemistry with said team only to kicked off by the next of this tournament's yearly revisions. If the US teams are going to completely change, then sure it can be a clean slate for them, but for the teams from last WCoP that will remain in this year's tournament, I don't think any former strong eligibilities should have to worry about being removed from their team.
Players that haven't been on US teams teams previously, but would qualify as a fresh US signup this year, are allowed to remain on their current team. blunder staying on Team Canada is a good example of that.

And finally, we're removing the ability for continental teams to recruit rejects from subset teams. For example, a player rejected from Team Germany cannot be selected for Team Europe. Following the same example, this means Team Europe wouldn't really be Europe, but rather a specifically drawn map that includes all the European countries not currently encompassed by other teams such as Team Spain or Team France. These newly set rules will not be applied to the respective continental teams retroactively, as is standard with newly implemented policy. It also means that previously allowed weak eligibilities such as Belgian players (from Wallonia) playing for Team France and Austrian players playing for Team Germany will not be overturned, despite it not being allowed going forward.

re: Format

We've decided to return WCoP to its roots and revert back to the original format of all current gen OU. This change should feel familiar to anyone acquainted with WCoP's history and legacy, and we believe that the time is right to return to this format. We are also discussing switching from 10 starting slots to 8 to go alongside this format change.

The first and foremost reason behind this change is the difficulties smaller regions and teams experience with finding good old gen players for their rosters. There simply are way more current gen players than there are old gen players, especially when you factor in offsite and PS! communities as well. A full current gen format would make forming a competitively viable roster much easier for struggling and new teams, which in turn makes for a more competitive and thus better tournament. Another factor we considered is the full current gen format's contribution to WCoP's team cohesion. By having the entire team focused on a single metagame, we believe that the feeling of community and accord that sets WCoP apart from other tournaments will increase even further.

As for 8 slots vs. 10 slots, I've been going over some of the prospective rosters, and while I believe that 10 slots of current gen OU would be doable for some teams, fielding a full 10 competitive current gen OU players could yield a big advantage for some of the more geographically dense areas (and even then some of the larger teams may have difficulty fielding this). However, based on some sample rosters I messed around with, 8 slots seems like it is the sweet spot where there is plenty of inclusion but where the tour still remains competitive. 8 starting slots would mean there'd be 4 substitute slots for each team. Community input on this from some of the WCoP teams would be appreciated.
 

Lavos

keeper of the ledger
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris the 4th Smogon Classic Winneris a Past WCoP Champion
#21
The first and foremost reason behind this change is the difficulties smaller regions and teams experience with finding good old gen players for their rosters. There simply are way more current gen players than there are old gen players, especially when you factor in offsite and PS! communities as well. A full current gen format would make forming a competitively viable roster much easier for struggling and new teams, which in turn makes for a more competitive and thus better tournament.
Just going to address this point, since you cited it as the biggest factor in your decision.
East: 11-4
LA: 9-6
France: 10-5
Italy: 10-5
Spain: 9-6
West: 8-7
Europe: 8-7
Germany: 7-8

Total: 72-48 = 60% winrate
Metro: 4-11
Brazil: 5-10
Greece: 6-9
Central: 6-9
Canada: 8-7
UK: 6-9
Oceania: 5-10
Asia: 8-7

Total: 48-72 = 40% winrate
East: 9-6
LA: 10-5
France: 8-7
Italy: 8-7
Spain: 8-7
West: 8-7
Europe: 8-7
Germany: 8-7

Total: 67-53 = 55.8% winrate
Metro: 10-5
Brazil: 9-6
Greece: 7-8
Central: 7-8
Canada: 5-10
UK: 6-9
Oceania: 6-9
Asia: 3-12

Total: 53-67 = 44.2% winrate

The TDs apparently think that small regions and/or newer teams can't field a successful old gens roster, and that it's easier to find good SM OU players than old gens players. However, a cursory glance at last year's WCOP prelims standings reveals the exact opposite. In fact, SM OU was the more polarized of the two, with teams that qualified for playoffs winning 60% of their games, and teams that did not qualify winning only 40%. Contrast that to old gens, in which playoffs teams won about 56% of their games, and non-playoff teams won 44%. Not a massive difference, but definitely enough to show that the TDs are wrong in this assumption. Part of the reason for this is because the top SM OU players dominate their competition, usually earning a 3-0 in their group, and the 3-0 players in SM OU were consolidated almost entirely in the top 8 teams.

In SM OU groups, there were 13 slots which achieved a 3-0 record. In old gen groups, only 11 slots reached a 3-0 record. Again, not a huge difference, but it does show that current gen is slightly more polarized in its competition than old gens. Even if you look at the Metro vs India series for the qualifying round, India actually won 3 of 5 old gen games, while only winning 1 of 4 SM OU games.

The Tournament Directors are staking their entire justification for this controversial decision on "making it easier for new/struggling teams" when the facts show it's the opposite. Weak teams are actually more competitive in old gens, and face greater challenges in current gen play. If TDs actually cared about helping the struggling teams of this tournament and bringing some equity to WCOP. Instead, this reeks of a flimsy justification to "fix" something that wasn't broken in the first place.

I applaud the decision to change the USA team map and update eligibility rules, these were changes that needed to be done. However, I am completely baffled by this choice to make WCOP all SM OU on this basis of "helping the little guy" when you're actually just improving the chances for teams that are already strong. I don't care about addressing the "team cohesion" point, beyond saying that I have never felt a difference in the cohesion of my WCOP team based on the format of the year, and I have played in both recent formats (all current gen and mixed gen).
 
#22
As one of the people involved with actually putting a new team together(Austria), I can only confirm the opposite. While it is easier to find currentgen player, it is NOT easier to find 10 qualitative usm players than 1-2 for every oldgen. In our case this would actually just make it much harder to put together a competitive team. Besides, a game between Bedschibaer and Lavos would be a much better spectator experience than whatever is going down on sm 7-10
 
#23
re: Format

We've decided to return WCoP to its roots and revert back to the original format of all current gen OU. This change should feel familiar to anyone acquainted with WCoP's history and legacy, and we believe that the time is right to return to this format. We are also discussing switching from 10 starting slots to 8 to go alongside this format change.

The first and foremost reason behind this change is the difficulties smaller regions and teams experience with finding good old gen players for their rosters. There simply are way more current gen players than there are old gen players, especially when you factor in offsite and PS! communities as well. A full current gen format would make forming a competitively viable roster much easier for struggling and new teams, which in turn makes for a more competitive and thus better tournament. Another factor we considered is the full current gen format's contribution to WCoP's team cohesion. By having the entire team focused on a single metagame, we believe that the feeling of community and accord that sets WCoP apart from other tournaments will increase even further.

As for 8 slots vs. 10 slots, I've been going over some of the prospective rosters, and while I believe that 10 slots of current gen OU would be doable for some teams, fielding a full 10 competitive current gen OU players could yield a big advantage for some of the more geographically dense areas (and even then some of the larger teams may have difficulty fielding this). However, based on some sample rosters I messed around with, 8 slots seems like it is the sweet spot where there is plenty of inclusion but where the tour still remains competitive. 8 starting slots would mean there'd be 4 substitute slots for each team. Community input on this from some of the WCoP teams would be appreciated.
dont do this please. it wont help us weaker teams at all. oceania tied LAST and we all know that was thanks to our sm record. scrapping old gens and asking us to field extra new gens is basically a death sentence. and i think all our vets hate sm so they prob wouldnt even want to play :(
 

august

youre a voice that never sings
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnuswon the 5th Official Smogon Tournamentis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Champion
#24
probably get infracted for this but this is one of the top 5 dumbest decisions i've ever seen in my nearly 11 years on smogon

for reasons echoed by everyone else who has posted (since i should add atleast some justification). if you want this to continue to be a top competitive tournament you NEED to include the older gens because it keeps things fresh. no one wants to watch 10 USM games and you force players like me who have a vested interest in this tournament to either:
a) not play
or b) learn a tier that has absolutely no use to them. its bad enough that smogon tour doesn't include most of the older gens anymore and now wcop? im really interested in the reasons behind this and id like to see the poll results

the reason that you continue to see metagame shifts (example: jynx in gsc, things like weezing gaining traction in adv and mach punch loom in dpp) is because those tiers are REGULARLY played in major team tournaments. tournaments that people watch. tournaments where people collaborate and test with a broad range of people on their teams. if you make spl the only team tournament where old gens are played you are going to see metagames become increasingly stale because there is less of a reason for people to innovate. tournaments like smogon classic just arent the same because although there are far more people playing old gens in these tours, they are likely just using recycled teams that they get from friends or just straight up ripping teams that they like from tournaments like spl or world cup

EDIT: and to all the TDs posting in this thread:

the TD team thinks that last year's format wasn't the correct decision but the people playing in the tournament overwhelmingly think that it is. why is your agenda to change to current gen OU more important than the wants of the community? do you not exist to serve the community? what is markedly more important about the TD agenda than the wants of the people playing in the tournament?
 
Last edited:

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
UU & Tour Head
#25
Here are the poll results.



Before the inevitable blow-up about how TDs ignored community opinion yet again, we actually discussed this quite a bit, and it was unanimous among the TD team that sticking with last year's format (SM through GSC) would be a mistake. Including every generation but one felt arbitrary and awkward, the format is unsustainable over the long term, and it leads to a less competitive tour. We posted the poll early on in our discussion process, but in the interim we agreed across the board that sticking with last year's format was a non-starter.

Now, does that mean that this is our only option? Not necessarily. All CG OU was by far the preferred option of those we discussed for a lot of reasons: it makes it easy to build a new team, it guarantees equal representation in tours, it fits in with the legacy and history of WCOP. It also folds in nicely with some other changes to the overall tour structure that we are considering as far as overall tour representation goes. There are some other proposals we discussed as well, including one idea that ABR recently came up with which I'll let him bring up if he wants. But again, we all agreed that continuing with last year's format was not the play.

Lavos said:
I appreciate the analysis but I think this is also a bit misleading. The problem is that because the communities are overall smaller, high talent old gen players are unevenly distributed. No one is implying that Latvia or Mozambique can't field a top tier GSCer. However, in addition to the uneven distribution of players, this also misses the fact that most talented old gen players ALSO play SM at a high level but have to choose between how best to support their team. Your data shows that there is often an either-or aspect with smaller teams; they have to choose between allowing their best players to support SM or having them fill in with the old gens because they can operate there unsupported. Also, this might just be my own personal bias in play, but I suspect it will probably be a lot easier for you to learn SM at a competitive level (Z-moves and Megas be damned) than it will be for the average SM player to play GSC at your level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top