Announcement RUPL Format Discussion thread

[MrAldo]

Dual hosted by me and lovely Kableye

EH, WHAT VERSION OF RUPL IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE? DOESNT MATTER!!
Banner soon
​

Hello everyone, we are intending to launch RUPL back soon! However there are some points we would like to clarify with the community input to ensure the tournament would be as enjoyable as possible, 3 things essentially:

1. The format? Would we fine with repeating the same format that was pretty effective for past rupl and RUSD (4 SS/2 SM/1 ORAS/1 BW) or are there better alternatives?

2. Retains? This is something that bugs me since past RUPL got cancelled for pretty delicate reasons but people will still like to have retains or do we start over fresh with nothing in between?

3. Manager pricing? Fetching Data from past RUPL is a bust so the idea would be based on the amount of wins from past RUSD, with a slight change that instead of 1.5k per win it will be 1k per win for tournament tenure. 10k + 1k per win in past team tour is the plan. Does that sit well with everyone?

Sellbacks remain the same functional thing as spl, any cancering 3k be given and replacement from the remaining pool picked for 3k. But getting ahead of myself on that one.

Manager signups will go up as soon as everything is decided. I was debating on getting this thread up but I guess it is tradition at this point.

Edit: Also let me ideal credit count per team. 120k? or 110k? Let me know

 

[atomicllamas]

I think that 4 SS / 2 SM / 1 ORAS / 1 BW is optimal. I don’t think ru has the player base for more than 8 slots per team and these tournaments should always aim to primarily develop the current gen. The only thing that worries me is getting 8 BW players, but the BW hate is way over blown given at one point RU was considered arguably the best BW tier on smogon (please come back KW uwu).

I don’t see why retains shouldn’t exist from the prior RUPL? It ended early unfortunately, but if we’re giving priority to former managers then we should give retains for the sameteam identity arguments.

10k+1*#Wk from RU snake seems fine to me? I guess there is probably something better because going undefeated is like 17-19k vs 10k for no wins which seems like a low discrepancy, but I’m not sure number of ru snake wins is that predictive of skill / success regardless.

 

[Oathkeeper]

Agreeing with atomicllamas on this one with the 4/2/1/1 spread. Developing the current gen, especially since the standard shift schedule just started last month, is the best way to go and it's still a decent mix of the old gens.

 

[Feliburn]

4-2-1-1

Retains from previous RUPL, with records from RUSD

Don't let Ajna name his team Mighty Mudsdales if he gets a manager position please, let that brand die

 

[EviGaro]

4-2-1-1 is fine, though at this point people seem a lot more over sm...? I don't see the same reluctance anymore over not playing that tier because gen 8 was what it was last year. 4-1-1-1-1 with one bo3 is also technically possible, though hardly anyone has talked about it (lighthouses defend it kek)

Retains are fine, and yeah sure we can use the records from snake

 

[Ajna]

bw does not have the playerbase to support 4 quality games per week, and it is inherently more luck based than every other ru gen due to the mechanics and mons available. i would heavily advocate for a bo3 slot over bw.

we still have plenty of players that have been around since the oras days, yet still, the player base isn't incredibly strong. we have no players from bw that are still active in the community (bar old man meru), so i don't understand why we are still trying to hold onto it. from a managerial perspective, it is incredibly hard to draft for the bw slot seeing as the only person left that wants to play it is cs. recurring faces that we've seen slot into bw in recent years like lep and kw are no longer playing, so this only weakens the pool further. forcing a tour main into bw year after is getting more and more tired; can we please just move on?

i don't have a strong opinion on retains. i think we'll be perfectly fine with or without them.

even though this year it would benefit me, i'm still rlly against using wins for manager pricing. i think we would be much better off with fixed pricing, or even leaving it up to a vote or something of the sort from the player base. like, we send out a spreadsheet and ppl say what they think x manager should be priced, and then we average all the responses. idk, anything is better than using wins to me.

i think the tour would be oh so much better without bw, but i'm excited either way. the mighty mudsdales will be back in full force Feliburn

 

[tko]

I think having 6 slots would be cool, 4 current gen always annoying to have to deal with each week. I think if we consolidate the match ups down to 2 current gen, then we could probably get some more exciting match ups and less stolen teams per week.

I would also like to say that Doubles RU would make this tour spicy

 

[Ningildo]

ALL BW SLOTS OR GO HOME

bw does not have the playerbase to support 4 quality games per week,

Sure, I guess.

and it is inherently more luck based than every other ru gen due to the mechanics and mons available.

I was kind of on board with this statement (because BW sleep mechanics suck), but I'm quite lost on the bolded bit. What does that even mean?

Side note: if sleep mechanics are the only reason BW RU is seen as more "luck based" (counterplay in Sap Sipper and Vital Spirit mons (Bouffalant, Magmortar), Sleep Talk on select Choice users (mainly Emboar and Entei) and just scaring the daylights out of Sleep users exist, but let's leave that aside for sec), BW RU with similar bans on Sleep moves as in BW OU is an option. Not one I'd recommend (lest you slash the low playerbase down even further), but it's there. Unless there are more reasons for this "BW RU is more luck based" view, in which case do tell because I'm not following.


CG slots could be messed around with for something like Doubles RU, I guess? I just haven't ever heard Doubles RU mentioned anywhere else, so if BW RU is already considered on the chopping block here and there for a lack of players, I don't really know how you'd argue for DRU (that acronym sucks).

What would the bo3 slot be if we do decide to go 4-1-1-1? CG already has enough rep, so maybe BW could be the bo3 to ensure the better player doesn't lose to luck? Idk just spitballing.

 

[Ajna]

ALL BW SLOTS OR GO HOME


Sure, I guess.

I was kind of on board with this statement (because BW sleep mechanics suck), but I'm quite lost on the bolded bit. What does that even mean?

Side note: if sleep mechanics are the only reason BW RU is seen as more "luck based" (counterplay in Sap Sipper and Vital Spirit mons (Bouffalant, Magmortar), Sleep Talk on select Choice users (mainly Emboar and Entei) and just scaring the daylights out of Sleep users exist, but let's leave that aside for sec), BW RU with similar bans on Sleep moves as in BW OU is an option. Not one I'd recommend (lest you slash the low playerbase down even further), but it's there. Unless there are more reasons for this "BW RU is more luck based" view, in which case do tell because I'm not following.


CG slots could be messed around with for something like Doubles RU, I guess? I just haven't ever heard Doubles RU mentioned anywhere else, so if BW RU is already considered on the chopping block here and there for a lack of players, I don't really know how you'd argue for DRU (that acronym sucks).

What would the bo3 slot be if we do decide to go 4-1-1-1? CG already has enough rep, so maybe BW could be the bo3 to ensure the better player doesn't lose to luck? Idk just spitballing.

it doesn't really have anything to do with sleep mechanics. i was more so referring to 1/16 2x crits and moltres/durant. modern bw ru is incredibly offense oriented, so the games are often pretty short. when you mix that with 2 of the best mons in the tier relying on 80 and 70 percent accurate moves with obnoxious 30 percent effect chances, you're basically just playing a variance madhouse. also, if you choose to avoid using these 2 mons altogether, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, and you're still subject to praying that your opponent misses w/ the brokens.

i really would not like to see bw in the tour at all, but if there's a group that really wants to see it, go crazy. seeing as ru subforum tours and ru classic are the only tours in which bw ru rlly exists, i'd be all for seeing how the tier plays if we were to ban moltres and ant. they both pick their counters, have multiple great sets, and are difficult to revenge. i really have no idea how everyone was fine with them back in the day.

 

[Ningildo]

it doesn't really have anything to do with sleep mechanics. i was more so referring to 1/16 2x crits and moltres/durant. modern bw ru is incredibly offense oriented, so the games are often pretty short. when you mix that with 2 of the best mons in the tier relying on 80 and 70 percent accurate moves with obnoxious 30 percent effect chances, you're basically just playing a variance madhouse. also, if you choose to avoid using these 2 mons altogether, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, and you're still subject to praying that your opponent misses w/ the brokens.

i really would not like to see bw in the tour at all, but if there's a group that really wants to see it, go crazy. seeing as ru subforum tours and ru classic are the only tours in which bw ru rlly exists, i'd be all for seeing how the tier plays if we were to ban moltres and ant. they both pick their counters, have multiple great sets, and are difficult to revenge. i really have no idea how everyone was fine with them back in the day.

Crits suck in any gen (even with CG's lower chance + only 1.5 damage), but outside of that the "Durant and Moltres being simultaneously among the best, yet unreliable mons" point is a pretty strong argument for inconsistent results that disregards skill a bit more than you are clearly comfortable with.

I'd still argue for it's inclusion so I can get chosen as the bottom of the barrel pick because legacy reasons (RU as a tier started in BW after all), but there isn't really anything stopping us from (possibly) improving the tier at this point and shake off the view that BW RU is "more luck based", garnering interest from newer players in the process.

Discussing changes to an old tier like that would probably need the input of the (few) players that actually played the tier (hey that's me) and were good (hey that isn't me). Then is there is the issue of when to try these changes, when to implement them in regards to RUPL (probably too late at this stage).

But the above is outside the scope of this thread's topic, and seeing as you are willing to keep BW in, issue solved (for now), I'd say.

 

[Nat]

not going to write a huge piece, definitely support the inclusion of a bo3 slot though. feel like there'd be more of a place for it vs some other options like a 4th ss, 2 sm, or one bw. dont rlly care abt the makeup but i guess id prefer dropping bw where possible for reasons ajna described above. it'd be rad to not have a tier where a majority of the people don't rlly play it, to speak nothing on how i feel abt the competitiveness of it compared to 6-8. i guess it'd be more practical in the eyes of some to get rid of a 2nd sm before 1 bw if we did include a bo3. i think 4 ss is /fine/ given usual interest, so 4 ss 2 sm 1 oras 1 bo3 or 4 ss 1 sm 1 oras 1 bw 1 bo3 would be great.

 

[Meru]

5 SS / 1 SM / 1 ORAS / 1 Bo3 (SM, ORAS, BW)

SS RU right now is in a state where there are a lot of NU and PU mons to be explored, as well as little tweaks on sets and playstyles that will be great to see play out. Between people who play in seasonal and tour goons, I think fielding armadas for this part of the draft will be completely doable, and allow for a lot of cool collaboration. A big part of this tour is developing that meta and I think teams that execute that should be rewarded the win for the week, so 5/8 slots being dedicated to it is hardly "unfair"

The Bo3 slot helps compromise the extra SM slot while not completely taking BW away. It'll be interesting to see the people who go in with a huge advantage with one tier have to pull something together for the other two. We definitely have eight heavyweights to support this option, and there's always the option of throwing a tour goon in there.

 

[lighthouses]

How would people feel about BW remaining in the tournament if we could make some bans exclusively for rupl?
There would be more insentive for innovation and we could drastically reduce luck present in games(my initial suggestion would be banning both durant and moltres).
I really feel like bw ru might just completely die out if its not represented here and that would be a big shame :(

 

[Expulso]

From RUWC i think 5 ss teams/week is too much to effectively handle, I felt that I was way more able to support the 4 slots in RUSD. Tbf RUWC was a lower effort tour, but I still felt forced to just kinda look briefly at teams once before they play or reuse something from a prior week / another slot. with 4 ss + bo3 you’d almost certainly have recycling of teams or be required to use teams that haven't been tested that much. Even if you try to draft active SS players & building support, this is likely to happen; people have school, work, off weeks, etc. and 5 SS feels overwhelming to me.

The current state of BW RU in these tours is atrocious. I love playing BW RU with friends for fun but so many games here turns into a dumpster fire for the reasons Ajna touched on above; Molt/Durant being absurdly dominant pokemon means there's little reason not to use them, and once you do use them it's a variance madhouse between their >=80% moves, BW Sleep, BW crits, and a seemingly endless litany of other hax/rng.

At the same time, I sympathize with Diogo's concern for BW RU disappearing entirely as a tier. Due to that + my personal preference for no more than 4 SS slots, I think the best format would be 4 SS - 2 SM - 1 ORAS - 1 BW [WITH BANS]. if we don't retier BW RU it shouldn't be included.

I do think the removal of Moltres/Durant/maybe Druddigon would make the tier interesting, fun, and hopefully more competitive. Re-tiering old gen lower tiers is a very complicated thing but at least we can put in place rules for this tour that will hopefully fix BW RU and make this tournament have more variety.

 

[MrAldo]

Well, this shows how important it was to have this thread! Thanks a lot for the opinions and pointers and all are being taken care of into consideration.

Regarding the format, it is almost kind of decided and is commonly agreed that 4 SS is the best option and enough representation to keep pushing the metagame forward, so just figuring out what to do with the last slot. BW is part of RU history and I do agree in a sense that removing it would be a big shame but right now this opens an opportunity to act upon improving it. The consideration for BW if it was included with some bans like: banning Moltres, Durant, Sleep, and potentially Sceptile sounds like a possibility for people (the sceptile one is a heavy IF, but the previous 3 are set based on discussion and agreed upon with community input).

Would banning those options to explore how the meta changes and if it could possibly make the tier less of a "variance" madhouse, will this sit well with potential managers and players?

I have a feeling of adding fixed pricing for the managers to purchase themselves? Would 15k for purchasing yourself as a manager sounds like a good middleground or just go with the tried and true formula that has been the most functional?

Retains for players will be based on past rupl pricing + 3k, anything below 10k will be automatically 10k for the retain. We shall come to a consensus soon.

 

[atomicllamas]

I’m about to sound boomer as fuck but...

Altering old gens because you don’t think they’re as good as they could be is so stupid. If you want to do like an updated sleep clause or an updated BP clause, that’s maybe acceptable because those aspects are arguably uncompetitive, but banning 2-3 Pokémon from a tier because a group of people who did not play the tier when it was active think that they’re problematic is a meme. BW RU without Durant, Moltres, or Sceptile is not BW RU. Honestly at that point don’t include it, because it’s literally a made up meta game. Also, how can you think that this would improve game quality? Now there will be 0 people with any experience in the “BW RU” tier and who is going to bother to explore a meta that literally only exists for a 7 week team tournament?

 

[lighthouses]

It's not what i want at all, i think it should be included and unchanged. I was just trying to reach some sort of compromise. I just dont want the metagame do die out, maybe it wont and im exagerating or maybe nobody really cares i dunno

 

[Ajna]

I’m about to sound boomer as fuck but...

but banning 2-3 Pokémon from a tier because a group of people who did not play the tier when it was active think that they’re problematic is a meme.

1. the bw ru meta we play today is not the same as the one from spl 4/5, 2. windsong and august were considered two of the best bw ru's, and they both think tres and ant are dumb. it doesn't take much brain power to see that those mons are problematic. we've been playing and watching bw for 5 years; i'm pretty sure that gives us a decent enough idea as to what the issue is.

BW RU without Durant, Moltres, or Sceptile is not BW RU.

idk why people wanna get rid of scept, but you would you rather play an inherently flawed metagame simply because ru wasn't tiered well during bw? doesn't make sense to me

Also, how can you think that this would improve game quality?

it doesn't improve the playerbase (which alone should be grounds to get rid of bw), but it improves the game quality because we don't have to watch every game come down to hustle and hitting cane on slowking/kabutops.

Now there will be 0 people with any experience in the “BW RU” tier and who is going to bother to explore a meta that literally only exists for a 7 week team tournament?

addressed the first part already, and the ru playerbase explores old metagames for a 7 week tour every year. not sure why this would change now. oras and sm continue to change and develop every year, because a good portion of each pool actively builds new teams every week. the teams that were good in oras three years ago aren't very good now; it's not like we've just been bringing the same teams for 4 years.

 

[Nat]

disagree w/ altering BW if we include it for reasons llamas stated, but agree w/ ajna in that the best of the 3 options is just not including it as a main option. i don't see why 2 sm is so integral that we couldnt include it, though, unless we're really adamant 8 people wont want to play it. in my mind bo3 would be ss locked and a pick from each player from 5-8, so it'd at least allow for some bw action if we truly removed it + it'd be at a higher level arguably since bo3 slot.

seems like 4 ss+sm+oras+bw+bo3 surely makes most camps happy? if we as a community cant agree on form of bw then id say 2 sm over it but 2 sm seems so extra by now, and i love sm.

 

[Bebo]

I'm anti BW I think trying to fix the tier with banning mons is byfar the worst option that just causes a big mess and it would be much easier if the tier wasnt included in this tour, it can still be played during classic if ur really that desperate to play bw ru

in my opinion I think most people would be happy with a 4 ss + 2 sm + oras + 1 bo3 consisting of ss, sm , oras

 

[Bouff]

i think either nat or bebo's format is the way to go (moreso nat's because it'll make everyone involved happy to some extent), though i do want to add on to say if there is that little of an interest in bw as a whole then it might be best to cut it - as in, interest from the people who have played it in the past ru team tours. if there's that small of an amount of people who are willing to play it and it'll just end up being mostly a bunch of guys being slapped in there for the sake of it and being fed teams then why bother going through it? i don't think a tier should be included for historical purposes if it's just going to be a liability for the majority of the players and the managers who are planning.

ofc if there's more people than i think that would like to have it included and will actually play the tier as opposed to just wanting it and just playing something else in the tour...then that'll be fine, and i'd love for those people to chime in, but afaik people are just dreading it more than not. from a personal perspective i enjoy playing the tier on and off but like it's just stressful for everyone involved.

 

[atomicllamas]

1. the bw ru meta we play today is not the same as the one from spl 4/5, 2. windsong and august were considered two of the best bw ru's, and they both think tres and ant are dumb. it doesn't take much brain power to see that those mons are problematic. we've been playing and watching bw for 5 years; i'm pretty sure that gives us a decent enough idea as to what the issue is.

I agree the meta played in RUPLs is different for sure, but that weakens your next point, I don’t think August has played since then, and Windsong didn’t play in the last couple RU team tournaments. Regardless, two players, even historically incredibly good players, don’t get to unilaterally decide tiering. And a bunch of people who have no real experience in the tier certainly don’t.

idk why people wanna get rid of scept, but you would you rather play an inherently flawed metagame simply because ru wasn't tiered well during bw? doesn't make sense to me

Sceptile is arguably more constraining team building wise than either Moltres and Durant (which do have concrete counter play, even if not perfect), I assume that’s why it’s being mentioned. “Inherently flawed” is also completely subjective, there are many people that would say ORAS is “inherently flawed” (trust me I was the TL when it ended, I heard all about it). There is also no way to be sure that the meta that results from these bans would be better, I can see the next set of big threats being issues if these bans took place.

it doesn't improve the playerbase (which alone should be grounds to get rid of bw), but it improves the game quality because we don't have to watch every game come down to hustle and hitting cane on slowking/kabutops.

I think not enough player base is the one argument that holds any merit, but again, banning these Pokémon maybe makes the games subjectively better, maybe, it doesn’t address the issue at all.

addressed the first part already, and the ru playerbase explores old metagames for a 7 week tour every year. not sure why this would change now. oras and sm continue to change and develop every year, because a good portion of each pool actively builds new teams every week. the teams that were good in oras three years ago aren't very good now; it's not like we've just been bringing the same teams for 4 years.

It’s true, but last RUPL I tested with KW weekly even though I’m not building a ton of BW teams, because I have teams for that meta. I won’t be able to offer any support to a BW -3 of the best mons slot. I also won’t want to try to support that slot where as it makes sense to work towards supporting the actual BW meta because it’s in Classic already, a tournament anyone interested in the RU circuit will likely play anyways.

 

[Denial]

Since i'm the one that always fought for this, i guess i'll get in. I think including BW in RUPL is an awful idea for many reasons.

1) The tier is dead.

I've seen many arguments in the discord or here about "not wanting the tier to die", but... it has alredy been for several years now? There are no people that actively play it now (KW and Lep did, but theyre not active anymore) and theres no real reason to even get into it since we only have one tour for it in circuit and doesnt even give that many points. Everyone that defends the tier doesnt even really play it in this tour? To prove my point, heres the list of players from the last 2 tours:

RUPL VII

RUSD

From those 2 tours it is clearly visible that the only people that actively play BW are always the same 4, leaving the rest of the managers the only option to draft random names and hope for the best. Using those screenshots we can also move on to my next argument;

2) The tiering of this tier was a disaster, which ended up in a completely messy RNG fest, and its really hard to be consistent in.

Both tko and esche went hard negative in Snake while they had the best records in the tour in RUPL, and we all remember what happened to Finchinator that same RUPL right? This was pretty much argued before by Ajna and others so i wont touch too much on this, but i believe theres no point in trying to fix a tier that nobody has interest in while we're in the middle of a new gen that still needs development.

I really like the idea of bo3 instead of BW, and ill believe the tour would just be better without it.

 

[Pangoro]

Since everyone is throwing their two cents in, I will as well.

Personally, I think 4 SS + 2 SM + 1 ORAS + 1 Bo3 (SS being locked, each player picks a tier from 5-8) is ideal. I do agree with Nat that 2 SM by now is a little bit extra but when the other option is a BW slot, I think 2 SM is the best way to go. Why pick a tier that a majority of the RU playerbase doesn't like and even fewer people want to play when on the flip side, SM is a fantastic tier that a majority of the playerbase loves and cherishes (and no this isn't me being biased). Additionally, due to this fact, there are plenty of players willing to play SM RU which therefore takes a lot of pressure off of the managers.

If someone REALLY wants to play/build BW, just pick it in the Bo3 slot and there you go, you get your BW game. I strongly believe that this is the best format for this iteration of RUPL because it's honestly a good midground for all of the arguments that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[tko]

babyboyblues that's crazy bro; they don't want you to take over the BW scene yet again, but that's fine... I'm thinking this year you can show the ORAS pool what's up .