Hello, also manager and player of both rbtt and rbel here with some thoughts on some things
On dubs
I can confirm that the dubs pool is strong enough for a second slot. I would know, I drafted two dubs players last rbtt
Seriously though, there was a large contingent of strong players left behind last year, as dubs players also tend to make poor subs (a gen5 player can sub for gen4 just fine). It would also be nice for the newer and lesser known players to have more of a chance at rbel when more of the top tier goes to rbtt.
Of course, another dubs slot does take a slot, which is a legitimate concern. I'm only arguing that it's possible roster-wise.
If a second dubs slot does make it, making one bo5 and one bo3 seems fun to me, though not very important.
On bo5/7/9
In general playing more games does come with a cost. It makes scheduling more difficult, and it rewards concentration endurance (which is an important skill, but not one we're looking to test). In addition, the gains in terms of winrate-of-better-player are overblown. The average rbtt match has the better player with, optimistically, a 55% win chance per game. Such is the nature of high level randbats. At that level increasing the number of games, perhaps counterintuitively, barely increases the match winrate of the better player, and what there is to get is largely captured by bo3 already. See below a graph of game winchance against match winchance for different lengths (incorrectly assuming that endurance does not play a factor), with a dotted line at 55%:
View attachment 786425
Personally, I dislike having certain formats deviate from this. Gen1 is not so different from other formats that it should be made arbitrarily more important by raising the number of games. Having a vote per format is even worse in that sense. I suppose gentlemanning could be allowed but I would not encourage it in any way.
Bo3 is the best tried-and-true series length, with a bo5 slot for the "captain" in gen9 (and possibly dubs). Playing 5 matches in a tiebreak sounds good though. Note as well that in a non-tiebreak week you have ~14 matches, making it fundamentally a bo44 already.
On playing managers
I don't actually have an idea to solve this, but the current situation is somewhat unfair. Last year, by my count about 5 self-picks might have been round 1 picks had they not managed. This puts a team that does not self pick at a serious disadvantage. Simply moving it to round 1, however, makes it so that only the best players can self-pick without handicapping their team. Either way having a strong player as manager is highly beneficial even without the managing skill. Disallowing manager-players would solve the issue, but would likely see a steep decline in manager quality as some of the best managers would skip out because they want to play.
idk, but it's a bit of an issue. Maybe it's fine. I'd move it up higher than round 5 either way though.
On formats
I don't see a need to remove formats necessarily, but if some need to go then BSSF should be first on the chopping block, followed by BF and then HC. The BF ladder is dead. The BSSF ladder was so dead that it was removed completely. It's in the same boat as baby rands: excellent formats that unfortunately no one plays.
RBEL grinder, gen 1 shitposter here to add my thoughts
On bo5 for Gen1
Chains of Markov - You make an insightful observation on the effect of sample size on outcomes in scenarios with near 50% odds. I agree that increasing Gen1 rands from BO3 to BO5/7 would only slightly increase winrate of the better player; however, I posit that gen 1 rands does not
only play BO7 to increase the winrate of the better player but also to increase the number of
quality games.
A
quality game of pokemon random battles, by my own definition, is one where (A) both players are given teams that allow skillful, meaningful interaction, such as predicting, bluffing, and setting up your win condition, and (B) in game hax such as accuracy, secondary effects and critical hits has impact both players near equally.
Due to the limited roster of generation 1, team dif
feels more more severe than in other gens. With so few moves, pokemon compete for the same archetypes and often feel like worse versions of each other. This is exacerbated by the format's (rightfully beloved) inclusion of a lot of pre-evolutions. My Nidorino and your Nidoking are both trying to be four slot attackers with good coverage, why is yours so much more effective than mine. That does not
feel fair. Furthermore, gen 1 has some really bad mons. Moments like finding value from your ditto or setting up a sweep with your beedrill are some of the best experiences in all of random battles, but I still would not want one on my team in an important match. It does not
feel satisfying when I beat my opponent's Ditto, Goldeen and Machop with my Chansey, Zapdos, and Mewtwo. This does not even get into how many horrible individual 1v1 match ups there are in the gen such as most electrics vs grounds, farfetch'd vs ghosts and how they warp a match. I admit winrate is a pretty bad statistic to judge pokemon viability, especially with a format with as few matches as gen 1, but at time of writing there are 14/146 mons with sub 45% WR in gen 1 compared to 2/505 in gen 9. In generation 1,
team dif feels more impactful than in other generations.
So many games in generation 1 random battles
feel like they come down to body slam paralysis, sleep move accuracy, blizzard freezes, psychic special drops and other
hax that does not rely on the skill of a player. Winning a game because I crit my opponents grass type sleep powder user with blizzard as they missed sleep doesn't
feel satisfying. It feels cheap. Playing the odds is a tenet of random battles, moreso in generation 1 than any other, but I still
want beat my opponent due to my other, more visceral, skills. Quantifying that RNG in gen 1 is more impactful than in other generations would be an interesting exercise that I must defer, but there are key mechanical differences that
make rng feel worse in gen 1. Freeze being permanent unless your opponent melts
feels so frustrating. Sleep lasting up to 7 turns with waking taking your action (meaning a faster pokemon can just sleep you again without your pokemon doing a move) makes it
feel more uncompetitive in generation 1 than later iterations. Beyond pure mechanical difference, the format incentivizes
hax reliant win conditions more than in other generations. Paralysis
feels like it is more commonly used in gen 1, so more games come down to full paralysis turns. Again, some pokemon use sand attack and smokescreen, which can degenerate games into hax nightmares. Confuse ray also sees use. I
t feels like RNG ruins more games in gen 1 than in other generations.
So, if you (the reader, not just chains) agree with me so far, you are at least admitting that
team dif and
hax feel like they make more games low quality in generation 1 than in other generations, but that does not necessitate your support of gen 1 BO5 in RBTT. My useful strawman may say something like "RBTT is supposed to be the most
competitive tournament, who cares about how the players
feel." As much as I care about gen 1ers feelings, this critique warrants a more substantial reply. To this, I argue that we must consider what RBTT is for. It is not just an opportunity for the players to prove their skill or the teams to win a trophy, but it is
the premier showcase of random battles. It should demonstrate all the skill and practice that goes into getting good at random battles. I think a player of any skill level or familiarity should be able to click on any RBTT match and be impressed and inspired by the quality of play. Sadly, due the nature of the format, gen 1 random battles are not as consistently high quality as other formats(gen 2 excluded, that is another, completely different conversation). Someone could watch one series consisting of two matches decided by freezes and sleep accuracy. They would
feel that the format is haxy and unskilled. That is a tragedy. They will never learn about the niche mechanics and interactions like stat boosting moves halving the paralyzed opponent's speed again that make the format so cool and unique. If there was one more game in the series, maybe they would understand the appeal. One more game is one more opportunity to fall in love with the beauty of the format, why should that not be encouraged?
Obviously, I support
BO5 for gen 1. Other Gen 1 enthusiasts can speak to chain's other valid concerns about scheduling difficulties and the endurance required to play an extended set.
