Rejected SPL XVI Format (SV OU Slots)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ABR

ABR

is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis the 7th Smogon Classic Winneris the Smogon Tour Season 28 Championis the Smogon Tour Season 29 Championwon the 13th Official Smogon Tournamentis a Two-Time Past SPL Championis a Two-Time Past WCoP Championis a Former Old Generation Tournament Circuit Champion
Hello,

This is entirely unrelated to the other bo3 thread posted today. I believe most slots for the following SPL are set (8 oldgens, and then last year we voted on 2 vs 4 slots for SV OU). I don't want 4 to be kept out of pure inertia and now is a good time to start up the discussion.

Personally, I do prefer 2 over 4 because

1) The lower end (sv 3-4) feels very weak
2) SV being 1/3 of a tournament with 9 gens is overkill
3) 10 slots per team is plenty (WCoP + SCL use this)

I would also suggest, if there is another survey / vote, that it doesn't include the very people who would miss SPL due to this change. We can probably just go by managers alone or simply off the vibes in this thread.
 
I strongly disagree with this change. OU3 and 4 are the kind of cheap surprise slots that make the difference in a winning team and a subpar team. I want my OU scouting in the off-season to mean I can actually get rewarded (or punished) for doing (or not doing) due diligence on cheap picks. Just to name a few notable examples of pop-off performances last year from players who wouldn't have had a chance to be starters without the extra slots (using the bottom 20 of PR as an imperfect starting point):
JJ09LIE, hellom, myjava, ACR1, akalli, mada, ctc, dahli, s1nnoh

From OLT and SCL quality it seems obvious to me there are a solid 40+ SPL caliber OU players on site, even when you take away some who will shift into old gens (and inversely move some SCL low tier mains to OU). Keep 4 OU. Teams having large defined OU cores feels like a staple of these tours to me and that impacted is so greatly lessened by dropping to 2.
 
Just floating an idea, but why not do something like 3 sv ou + 1 doubles? I know scl is supposed to be the "lower tier" tournament but doubles isn't really a lower tier and feels more at home alongside the "ou" tournament. It's literally in the name too. Might be a very nostalgia-based take but one of my favorite things in spl was having dubs players interact with the rest of the team and just also spectating dubs games in spl. 3 sv also seems slightly more balanced than 4 and better than 2. That is if we want to maintain 12 slots. I think 2 sv with 10 slots is good too but prefer 4 due to the above
 
Last edited:
obii said:
Just floating an idea, but why not do something like 3 sv ou + 1 doubles? I know scl is supposed to be the "lower tier" tournament but doubles isn't really a lower tier and feels more at home alongside the "ou" tournament. It's literally in the name too. Might be a very nostalgia-based take but one of my favorite things in spl was having dubs players interact with the rest of the team and just also spectating dubs games in spl. 3 sv also seems slightly more balanced than 4 and better than 2. That is if we want to maintain 12 slots. I think 2 sv with 10 slots is good too.
Click to expand...
While there are always concerns about DOU posted in these threads, I think it's important to recognize that the tier also is one of the biggest draws when it comes to player interest. I'm operating solely on heuristic here but it seems like people love watching those games, and I think DOU will do even better with the new game chat feature on SmogTours (so mainers can explain to the rest of us idiots who is winning and why).

3SV + 1DOU also dovetails with what zom said above, something I'd have had difficult articulating myself. It's a good thing to have tiers in the tournament that reward finding gems and putting in hard work, I agree with that fully.

This seems like a nice mid-ground compromise to me.
 
I always supported the 3 CG OU + Doubles and I don't I have to explain the reasoning as people already have. It'll always be the best format for me.

Also I liked the gb's idea of the protagonist slot in CG OU, where each team have a main OUer and they face each other with the match counting as 2 wins instead of 1. You don't have tier drama this way and you also get the best quality OU games, win/win scenario for everyone, guys
 
ABR said:
1) The lower end (sv 3-4) feels very weak
Click to expand...

The other things ABR posted are vibes based nonsense one can't really argue with, but this we can at least take a somewhat empirical look at. Looking at last SPL and defining SV 1/2 as the 2 most expensive SV players on the team and SV 3/4 as the 3rd and 4th most expensive SV players on the team (tiebreaks by number of game, so if the team has 3 guys that cost more than 5k and 2 guys that cost 5k that both played SV, the one with more games played is counted as that team's SV 4) we get this:

Ruiners SV 1/2: 3-5 and 8-2 - 11-7
Ruiners SV 3/4: 6-4 and 4-6 - 10-10

Tigers SV 1/2: 9-2 and 2-3 - 11-5
Tigers SV 3/4: 7-4 and 6-4 - 13-8

Classiest SV 1/2: 3-5 and 5-4 - 8-8
Classiest SV 3/4: 3-6 and 3-4: 6-10

Cryos SV 1/2: 4-5 and 4-5 - 8-10
Cryos SV 3/4: 3-5 and 1-4 - 4-9

Tyrants SV 1/2: 1-5 and 2-3 - 3-8
Tyrants SV 3/4: 7-2 and 6-1 - 13-3

Bigs SV 1/2: 5-4 and 1-4 - 6-8
Bigs SV 3/4: 4-5 and 2-3 - 6-8

Scoots SV 1/2: 10-1* and 6-4 - 16-5
Scoots SV 3/4: 1-8 and 5-3 - 6-11

*the guy that went 10-1 cost .5k more than the guy that went 1-8 lol

Sharks SV 1/2: 6-3 and 6-3 - 12-6
Sharks SV 3/4: 3-3 and 2-2 - 5-5

Raiders SV 1/2: 4-4 and 3-4 - 7-8
Raiders SV 3/4: 5-1 and 3-0 - 8-1

Wolfpack SV 1/2: 2-7 and 6-3 - 8-9
Wolfpack SV 3/4: 2-2 and 2-3 - 4-5

Doesn't seem like that much of a difference, does it? And in fact you could argue one of the biggest reasons the Tyrants won is through a great draft where they squeezed a ton of value out of cheap SV talent. Increasing areas where manager skill can shine through like this is objectively a boon to the tournament.

Doubles already gets an entire charity tournament for themselves and has no place in SPL.
 
Last edited:
I don't really like the idea of a protagonist slot out of principle, at least not in the form it's being suggested, as I can't imagine many things more infuriating than being up 5-4 and then losing the week because your player gets absolutely fucked by luck in the protagonist slot. Can it make for cool moments and sometimes make weeks more exciting? Most definitely, but for the most part it just sounds like something that would be infuriating for the people actually playing the tour. I think we should prioritize competitiveness, absolutely, but I also think it'd turn out leaving sour tastes in a lot of people's mouths personally.

That said, I've always been into exploring more experimental slots, and instead of the same old Draft/Blitz ideas I push every year, I can see the "protagonist slot" be somewhat cool if it's reworked into something else. We can make it the protagonist playing (I was thinking a random player, but the logistics of this seem pretty awkward), but maybe make it a random tier or something like that? I think something that actually incentivizes teams to work more as a cohesive unit is a good thing, and if there's a slot that has a random tier picked at the start of the week counting double then that would at least be an incentive to work on that slot, together, as a team, even if your chosen protagonist is not necessarily intimately familiar with the tier.

Also means your protagonist actually feels like one, as he has to shoulder whatever tier comes his way. Just some random ideas I'm spitballing, I still think Draft/Blitz are both better ideas, but I don't actually hate the sound of this all that much anymore after writing it down like this. Just some things to think about.

Didn't see ABR lost already, but oh well, I wrote it up now, might as well post.
 
4 SV slots is probably fine. It feels like 2 is too few and 3 doesn’t really have a clean overall format solution. 4 hasn’t been that bad and posts like Luigi’s highlight some nice merit strategically.

This also becomes 3 CG slots for generation 10 assuming we keep every old generation in, which is probably good.
 
i was originally opposed to 12 slots with 4 sv ou. however, after having it for the past two years, i think it works well for spl. i like being able to watch more games and in practice it's cool for spl to have more slots, differentiating it from wcop/scl. gives it a unique feel and imo can build more hype overall. it's really difficult to foster active, thriving teamchats in 2024, especially without adding people from outside the team. more slots helps make this tournament feel like it used to in that regard, which is a positive imo.

that said, the survey that helped decide 4 slots > 2 originally had significant bias and was done poorly (mass pm to all those drafted, which incentivized many on the cusp of draftability to vote in favor of 4 slots). in this case, i encourage the tds to make the decision without having managers/players directly surveyed, while gauging community support holistically, if it's even a decision at this point (just saw abr followup post and 12 slots seems uncontested)
 
Going to throw a curveballl in here knowing its very unlikely to get much support but what would people think about throwing a Natdex OU slot in along with 3 SVOU slots? Kind of splits the difference between wanting managers to be rewarded for good preseason scouting while also not making the pool too wide. 2 Slots seems like not enough but 4 seems to be too many and I feel if 3 slots plus another tier were to be added NDOU would fit more in line with the theme of the tour than doubles ou would.

The natdex community has been kept separate from the official tournaments ever since its inception but still remains one of the most popular and played tiers on the site with what I believe is the third most played ladder after Randbats and SVOU while also having a massive and thriving community. It would be a cool change to see the tier in an official tournament, I have no doubts there would be any trouble finding enough SPL quality talent within the natdex community along with the many current gen mainers who frequently cross over and play natdex tours that might be interested in playing the tier on the biggest stage.

Heres some questions I leave you all to think about if you consider this proposal:

Would the tier be fun to watch?
Would the tier be fun to play/build?
Would a change like this freshen up the tour two years into SV?

haha reacts here ⬇️​
 
Please no nonsense of any non mainline ou tier, thanks

I stand with 2>4 sv slots mostly bc of 10 over 12 total team starting slots, but at the end of the day this is personal preference lol
Just survey with a less biased voting poll (what that poll should be may be ambiguous though) and that will sort it out.
 
I was of the idea of 2/3 sv slots, since this exhausts the tier, but gb convinced me when pointing of how many new talents came up in SPL that maybe couldn't have showed with fewer people

But can we please don't put the protagonist slot? Like, I get it, it would be funny to see a whole team crash out because their protagonist lost to fucking tera ground power herb dig Kingambit, but I don't think the actual players wanna be involved in that in the first place
 
There is no reality where we entertain National Dex or a single slot being weighed 2x, in my opinion.

National Dex is a cool story with a community that grew a lot when it started last generation. I have nothing but respect for that and the volunteers who put their time into its development, but it’s not an official tier, it subscribes to an entirely separate set of rules/regulations, and if your best point is “would it be fun” — which is entirely arbitrary/in the eye of the beholder — then odds are it’s time to go back to the drawing board. I do not see the pipeline to official inclusion starting with SPL of all tournaments to say the very least.

And I dislike the premise of one slot having disproportionate weight towards the outcome of weeks in general.
 
Just flip a coin between 4 slots or 2 slots, they have basically the same amount of pros and cons and is just a matter of preference, you will never get an agreement on what is "better". We wont even have this problem next year, probably. That said, please do not even entertain the idea of shit like natdex or doubles, thats just adding stuff for the sake of adding.

And going back to future iterations, given that 3 current OU slots is the sweet spot everyone agrees with, if you add stuff like doubles this year, next year you either go back to the issue of 2 vs 4 current OU slots or you added doubles just to remove it next year which is just wack.
 
Last edited:
ABR's point (2) is the important one to me here. 4 SV out of 12 slots is a bit much. It moves the tour toward being "whose OU core hits" over a more balanced impact of the various parts of the teams. Last edition the teams with the 4 best SV records were the 4 playoff teams, so it feels like the old gens are being somewhat overshadowed by having this many current gen slots.

I would prefer for there to be more diversity in what comprises a successful team than what seems to be the case with 4 SV slots.

I will also add that since 4 SV already got 2 of the gen 9 editions with mixed reception, it makes sense to give the alternative a shot this time around.

However, it's also clear that a lot of people (z0m et al.) like the exact thing that I personally dislike about 4 SV slots, so either choice is ultimately fine of course.
 
what about creating a spl exclusive format and using it for 1 or 2 of the slots? think about it it'll be hype as fuck. we could have like 50 pr threads to decide what rulesets and mons and stuff. and don't allow anyone to play the tier outside of spl if you do you'll end up in the same jail cell as the replay unlisters
 
We’ve had a couple years of doing 4 slots now, I believe that the 2 slot crowd deserves a chance. Obviously polling people from previous editions are going to tilt towards 4 slots because a large section of that group is people who got drafted because of there being 4 slots. Let’s make our tournaments competitive again by rewarding the teams that are the most well rounded throughout the generations.
 
MANNAT said:
We’ve had a couple years of doing 4 slots now, I believe that the 2 slot crowd deserves a chance. Obviously polling people from previous editions are going to tilt towards 4 slots because a large section of that group is people who got drafted because of there being 4 slots. Let’s make our tournaments competitive again by rewarding the teams that are the most well rounded throughout the generations.
Click to expand...
Thread's seemingly not going anywhere anyway but this post is rubbing me the wrong way. What's with the implication that our tournaments aren't competitive right now? Should we not reward teams that successfully scout out talent in the most active growing generation? This SCL alone - an ongoing tournament! - has multiple OU slots that would potentially not see play in a 2 SV format who are putting up excellent records (attribute, acr1, dahli, mada - no shade sorry guys! just contrasting to PR placement, flawed as it may be). Yes we're lucky to be playing a competitive game where older formats are not only alive but are thriving, but the way some people talk you'd think they never want to see new talent show up and would rather just watch highlight reels of the 2010s over and over. The focus should always be on CG OU and 2 slots just simply does not accomplish that. It should always be 3 or 4 depending on what ends up working for the current number of generations in the tournament - no format even comes close to the importance of CG OU and SPL should reflect that.
 
Lily said:
Should we not reward teams that successfully scout out talent in the most active growing generation?
Click to expand...
Should being able to scout talent in SV overshadow every other generation? SPL in its current state hinges on one metagame to such an extent that having a significant advantage there is nearly insurmountable to other teams.

CG OU having the most representation is important, but it already is overwhelmingly represented in the official circuit! In a “premier” league we should be focusing on balance and well rounded rosters rather than rewarding teams for having teams solely tilted to one metagame.
 
not a very high effort post i apologize, don't have an insane interest but i did last year and was fearful of this thread being a thing so i curiously checked for some stats in advance. it isn't presented as elegantly as Luigi provided w/ but i compiled SPL 2023's overall OU records of rank 1-20 on pr vs ranks 21-40, since more or less the community is saying these would be the top half players based on their educated guesses.

08c5099abbcf08b265f2135832fae640.png


seems i also wanted myself to mention that beyond the rank 1-40 starters, you definitely see more players getting legitimate chances to prove themselves even beyond the 21-40 seeds, such as lily/beraldo/dahli and im sure more from the pure bench any given year. Beyond the bench if we hypothetically cut out the perceived 20 worse players, it'd have lost me, mncmt, ziozio, xrn, fc, ruft, etc. between the bench and lower half names, you definitely are disallowing ppl to prove themselves who even in 2023 went on to have impactful years in the OU scene where they may not have otherwise if missed the opportunity here. I feel like smogon's competitiveness is raised for the better by just letting our players play, grow, and prove themselves in this scenario vs limiting it to 2 slots. it clearly in the past 2 spls has not dictated a drop in performance quality if going off overall record.
 
4 slots is good. 2 CG OU was supported back in the day because the playerbase was smaller and the level of play was unbalanced and really not great with 4 slots. The playerbase has grown considerably since then, and 2 SV OU is no longer enough slots to fit every player that is SPL-ready, and proof of that is the past SPL and current SCL having more slots and still having a balanced field. The data that Luigi and Nat posted above confirms it. I see no reason not to go with 4 slots.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top