Hi there! The creation of a UM is not as simple as asking for it to be made, and there is no set-in-stone way for a format to be added to the UMs. I reached out to the Pet Mods mod team, since that seems like a viable avenue to explore to me, especially since like you said this doesn't fit the OMs mold. Pet Mods are much more flexible and varied in regards to how they change the game (and, to some extent, are open to "my end goal is <>" formats like this) - they recommended you take a look at
Solomods, and their
rules and regulations here - try submitting it to the
submissions thread.
That said, I will provide some of my own thoughts, since I have been thinking about your format since you posted it. None of this is like, objective reality or word-from-high or what have you, they're just my own opinions based on what I understand of Smogon, Showdown, competitive Pokemon as a whole, and other related topics.
- Coding-wise, there is no easy way to do the kind of tiering action you're envisioning, as the closest equivalent is teambuilder validation rules for event Pokemon (think Gen 4 Raikou that can only be shiny if it has ExtremeSpeed) or how you can't find certain Pokemon (like evolutions) at lower than a certain level - this requires hard-coded rules in code indicating this information, and Showdown devs often have to go in and adjust things as folks find new niche situations where certain 'mons can be found in different environements. Randbats has a dedicated group that adjusts their specific corner of things, and they update it only occassionally. I would be incredibly surprised if there was a method that PS admins would be okay with to do this stuff automatically in the way you've described, meaning having this format as-is hosting on the main server would be likely impossible.
- Additionally, determing what matches should count and what shouldn't is something that is an impossible question to ask. Obviously, you don't want to include two friends manipulating levels by playing matches and doing intentional wins/losses, but how do you make that objective determination? How can one objectively determine whether a game is legitimate and both players are doing their best to win, and whether a game is not? Drawing the line is impossible from an angle of everyone agreeing to where the line is, and endlessly relitigating where individual games fall along that line.
- As an addendum to the above - if the goal is to make every one of the 1000+ mons viable, then you're likely to see 'mons rise and fall not based on their own merit, but by how good a player piloting them is. It's not unreasonable to assume that most 'mons are going to be used by maybe one or two people (aside exceptions like Arceus or Shadow Rider that will always be motivating for pure power) - the better the player using <mon>, the more likely it is to win. This, something that is being exclusively by a good player will not be balanced on its merit, but on the skill imbalance of the single person using it.
- Consistent tiering action is something that players and competitive communities are not huge fans of, generally speaking. There is a lot of conversation during many suspect test that the previous tiering change was too recent, and that people haven't figured out how to handle the thing being suspected in the modern meta. For example, what do you do when MonA is being used bc of how it interacts with/counters MonB, but then MonB's level changes - does MonA start back at 0 games on the record for its level balancing? If not, then does MonA retain a record from a meta that was much better for it despite the meta changing around it? This is aside the fact that many players will not enjoy having to constantly rebuild or adjust teams on a weekly or monthly basis because levels change, and thus speed tiers change, etc. This (people disliking have to go through their builder w/ fixes) already happens plenty in formats that change often via quickfire suspect tests or usage-based tiering shifts, I have to imagine that'd be present in a format where tiering happens every couple dozen games, potentially.
- There is also the fact that the wider a format is, the less enjoyable for many folks - the idea of having to account for so many potential threats and strategies with only six Pokemon is a daunting task, one that some NatDex formats and other similar formats are struggling with somewhat - and that's without balance changing or what have you. A format that actively tries to expand the list of viable Pokemon (compared to say, NatDex, that just has a larger list of available Pokemon) can quickly become incredibly frustrating as games feel out of your control and just a matter of who figured out the Pokemon overlevelled bc it hasn't been used yet, or the threat that one of the players couldn't account for in the builder happened to be on the other team.
Again, none of this is me saying this format can't work or that changes need to be made at its base, and admittedly I don't know what changes I might make to solve some of the above percieved issues. It's possible that the Pet Mods folks, who have a lot of experience making metagames with high 'mon counts when it comes to viability, will have ideas and means of creating something similar to what you are envisioning. I remember a Pet Mod (Solomod?) though I don't know its name, where they started off with a micrometa (limited number of 'mons allowed in the format), balanced it so everything was roughly equivalently viable, then slowly added more and more 'mons and keeping everything viable. While they had the ability to change base stats, movepools, abilities, etc, it's a fairly similar idea end-goal wise to what you're suggesting via more limited adjustment tools.
Anyway, hope some of these thoughts help, and hope that you find resources and information in Solomods to help you out with this format and your goals. But I don't think there's an avenue forward here in Unofficial Metagames at this point in time.
