Well guess we’ll run it back next year. Thank you to the guys on midwest for trusting me to run the team when i didn’t have experience with this level of a tour. We’ve got a lot of good players here and I think going forward we’ll have a team that can compete with the best. Shoutouts that UU player who couldn’t win his tryout games vs the better player but 3-0d. Dods plan, gl to all my friends in playoffs and hoping the french team tour drought can finally end
-
Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The World Cup of Pokémon 2018 - Round 1
- Thread starter Saria
- Start date
- Status
The top 8 following Round 1's conclusion are as follows:
1 Brazil
1 France
3 Italy
4 Canada
4 Europe
4 Oceania
7 Germany
7 US West
7 US Northeast
Germany, US Northeast and US West are currently tied for 7th going into Round 2 of WCOP. This means that a tiebreak will be required to determine who is placed as 7th seed, who is placed as 8th seed, and who will not make it out of Round 1.
The tiebreak will be in two stages:
First, all three teams will play a Bo1 SM OU round robin to determine the 7th seed. Each team will select a player to represent them in this round robin. The player to beat both of their opponents will have their team advance to Round 2 as the 7th seed. If there is no clear winner, the round robin will be replayed on Thursday, June 21, until a winner is determined. In the case of such a reset, substitutions will be allowed.
Second, the two remaining teams will play a traditional tiebreak to determine who advances as the 8th seed. These will follow the traditional tiebreak rules: a three-game tiebreak where each team chooses a generation of OU, and the third game is CG OU.
The three teams have selected their representative for the first stage, and thus we have:
Players have until Thursday, June 21 at 4 PM GMT -4 to complete this stage of the tiebreaks.
Thanks to all teams for participating, and congratulations to those who are advancing to Round 2.
1 Brazil
1 France
3 Italy
4 Canada
4 Europe
4 Oceania
7 Germany
7 US West
7 US Northeast
Germany, US Northeast and US West are currently tied for 7th going into Round 2 of WCOP. This means that a tiebreak will be required to determine who is placed as 7th seed, who is placed as 8th seed, and who will not make it out of Round 1.
The tiebreak will be in two stages:
First, all three teams will play a Bo1 SM OU round robin to determine the 7th seed. Each team will select a player to represent them in this round robin. The player to beat both of their opponents will have their team advance to Round 2 as the 7th seed. If there is no clear winner, the round robin will be replayed on Thursday, June 21, until a winner is determined. In the case of such a reset, substitutions will be allowed.
Second, the two remaining teams will play a traditional tiebreak to determine who advances as the 8th seed. These will follow the traditional tiebreak rules: a three-game tiebreak where each team chooses a generation of OU, and the third game is CG OU.
The three teams have selected their representative for the first stage, and thus we have:
Players have until Thursday, June 21 at 4 PM GMT -4 to complete this stage of the tiebreaks.
Thanks to all teams for participating, and congratulations to those who are advancing to Round 2.
There's a massive inconsistency with this decision regarding the tiebreak format. It doesn't flow logically from either possible interpretation of the rules when applied to points and their effect on seeding. For context, West and Germany both have 32 points, and Northeast has 31. With that in mind, there are two ways to interpret what's laid out pretty clearly in the OP:
1) West and Germany count as "within the top seven" for the purposes of points earned, since they are effectively tiebreaking for the 7th seed
Or
2) Ignoring points since all teams have the same record, West, Germany, and Northeast are 3 equal teams competing for 2 slots.
From these interpretations you'd do one of two things, assuming your intention is to follow the rules laid out in the OP (which it should be).
Either
1) West and Germany play a Bo3 tiebreak, as per the rules, to determine the 7th seed, and the loser plays Northeast in a Bo3 tiebreak
Or
2) West, Germany, and Northeast play a round robin Bo3 tiebreak, and the seeds are determined based on tiebreak performance.
Both of these eventualities make far more sense that what was ultimately decided. Not only do they follow the rules and line up with years upon years of WCoP precedent, they also create a level playing field for all teams involved, especially in the second tiebreak scenario, which is personally the interpretation I'd choose if I was an unbiased TD. Bringing a Bo1 round robin in SM OU makes absolutely no sense, doesn't fit with the established rules, and is seemingly completely unnecessary given that we already have established precedent for how tiebreaks are supposed to work. The only possible argument I can see against a round robin Bo3 tiebreak is that it could potentially take a lot of time in the event of resets. However, is this really a good enough reason to forego what is competitively and logically the far better tiebreak format? You're choosing to break rules and precedent on the slim possibility that this takes longer than a week (which wouldn't be the end of the world, either - quality competition is more important than timeframe).
It's no secret that Northeast has an incredible SM OU core, whereas West and Germany aren't exactly known for it. This out-of-the-blue decision by a TD team that is very close-knit, even if Northeast's TD ostensibly had nothing to do with the decision, absolutely reeks of collusion and bias. I'm not saying there was necessarily any wrongdoing. All I'm asking is: why this format? Why force this on teams when better options were readily available, not to mention established and predictable? And why is it that time and time again, we're seeing completely wild decisions from the TD team that most sane people wouldn't even consider, but which coincidentally benefit some members of the TD team in a very big way?
This decision is incredibly inconsistent with both the rules laid out by the TDs themselves, as well as the precedent set by past WCoPs, and I'd go so far as to say it runs counter to the spirit of the tournament, since that apparently matters. Oh, and before you say it, of course I'm biased and I only care because it affects my team, but that doesn't make me wrong. I'm allowed to be biased, I'm a fucking player. It's the TD team's job to make impartial, logical calls on matters of importance like this one, and it saddens me to see that they're still coming up short.
Either
1) West and Germany count as "within the top seven" for the purposes of points earned, since they are effectively tiebreaking for the 7th seed
Or
2) Ignoring points since all teams have the same record, West, Germany, and Northeast are 3 equal teams competing for 2 slots.
From these interpretations you'd do one of two things, assuming your intention is to follow the rules laid out in the OP (which it should be).
Either
1) West and Germany play a Bo3 tiebreak, as per the rules, to determine the 7th seed, and the loser plays Northeast in a Bo3 tiebreak
Or
2) West, Germany, and Northeast play a round robin Bo3 tiebreak, and the seeds are determined based on tiebreak performance.
Both of these eventualities make far more sense that what was ultimately decided. Not only do they follow the rules and line up with years upon years of WCoP precedent, they also create a level playing field for all teams involved, especially in the second tiebreak scenario, which is personally the interpretation I'd choose if I was an unbiased TD. Bringing a Bo1 round robin in SM OU makes absolutely no sense, doesn't fit with the established rules, and is seemingly completely unnecessary given that we already have established precedent for how tiebreaks are supposed to work. The only possible argument I can see against a round robin Bo3 tiebreak is that it could potentially take a lot of time in the event of resets. However, is this really a good enough reason to forego what is competitively and logically the far better tiebreak format? You're choosing to break rules and precedent on the slim possibility that this takes longer than a week (which wouldn't be the end of the world, either - quality competition is more important than timeframe).
It's no secret that Northeast has an incredible SM OU core, whereas West and Germany aren't exactly known for it. This out-of-the-blue decision by a TD team that is very close-knit, even if Northeast's TD ostensibly had nothing to do with the decision, absolutely reeks of collusion and bias. I'm not saying there was necessarily any wrongdoing. All I'm asking is: why this format? Why force this on teams when better options were readily available, not to mention established and predictable? And why is it that time and time again, we're seeing completely wild decisions from the TD team that most sane people wouldn't even consider, but which coincidentally benefit some members of the TD team in a very big way?
This decision is incredibly inconsistent with both the rules laid out by the TDs themselves, as well as the precedent set by past WCoPs, and I'd go so far as to say it runs counter to the spirit of the tournament, since that apparently matters. Oh, and before you say it, of course I'm biased and I only care because it affects my team, but that doesn't make me wrong. I'm allowed to be biased, I'm a fucking player. It's the TD team's job to make impartial, logical calls on matters of importance like this one, and it saddens me to see that they're still coming up short.
rooting for Leru 
john to win the rr, west to beat germany in 8 seed tb
I also think this tiebreak format is an odd choice, why not just have all teams play 3 games against each other (gen7ou, team1choice, team2choice) and then whichever team loses 2 series is out? You'd also have the option of a 2nd method of breaking RR ties in the # of tiebreak games won.
The current format forces us to wait for one series to finish before the other people even know they will be playing a tiebreaker.
Any chance we can get some reasoning behind the decision?
The current format forces us to wait for one series to finish before the other people even know they will be playing a tiebreaker.
Any chance we can get some reasoning behind the decision?
Last edited:
Leru! 
I would like to post to say I agree with Lavos and Earthworm about this issue.
The current decision from the TDs feels very arbitrary to me. I feel like the only advantage of it is that it won't (potentially) take as much time to complete, but on the other side, it is less consistent with what we've seen before in World Cup tiebreaks and less fair to teams with a weaker SM OU.
I am of the position that the Tournaments should be as competitive and optimally run as possible. Time constraint is just a bonus but not a necessity.
I would also like to know what other factors were taken into account to go with this decision, if there was any other but the time-constraint one.
If you ignore the one paragraph from Lavos' post where he goes full tinfoil hat, I think his arguments should be adressed by the TDs, considering they're sound and consistent with the way tiebreaks have been handled in WCoP and other tournaments.
The current decision from the TDs feels very arbitrary to me. I feel like the only advantage of it is that it won't (potentially) take as much time to complete, but on the other side, it is less consistent with what we've seen before in World Cup tiebreaks and less fair to teams with a weaker SM OU.
I am of the position that the Tournaments should be as competitive and optimally run as possible. Time constraint is just a bonus but not a necessity.
I would also like to know what other factors were taken into account to go with this decision, if there was any other but the time-constraint one.
If you ignore the one paragraph from Lavos' post where he goes full tinfoil hat, I think his arguments should be adressed by the TDs, considering they're sound and consistent with the way tiebreaks have been handled in WCoP and other tournaments.
Last edited:
For the record, this method of tiebreaking is not unheard of: in 2014 there was a three-way tie for the 6th seed between Canada, Brazil, and Asia and a BO1 round robin was used to break it. Obviously though the context was different in both implications and community choices, which is why I think it shouldn't be applied here.
When you weight the pros and cons of such a method, obviously the big plus is convenience as it'll take a lot less time and it'll allow for easier resets should the participants all beat each other. I'd like to echo McMeghan here; as a community we value competitiveness over convenience. There are a trillion examples of this ranging from our playoff format for every team tour having even slots leading to possible tiebreaks, to our simply ignoring points in this very tournament as far as playoff participation goes.
There is a tournament with a very similar setting that in my opinion has a much better tiebreak format for the last playoff spot: Smogon Tour. Take Smogon Tour 20 for example. We had three players in a tie for the 15th and 16th seed. They played in a BO3 round robin for the two slots. This was a no brainer in the tournament's context because all matches are played in that format. Should it be different here? All tiebreaks are played in a BO3 format.
When you weight the pros and cons of such a method, obviously the big plus is convenience as it'll take a lot less time and it'll allow for easier resets should the participants all beat each other. I'd like to echo McMeghan here; as a community we value competitiveness over convenience. There are a trillion examples of this ranging from our playoff format for every team tour having even slots leading to possible tiebreaks, to our simply ignoring points in this very tournament as far as playoff participation goes.
There is a tournament with a very similar setting that in my opinion has a much better tiebreak format for the last playoff spot: Smogon Tour. Take Smogon Tour 20 for example. We had three players in a tie for the 15th and 16th seed. They played in a BO3 round robin for the two slots. This was a no brainer in the tournament's context because all matches are played in that format. Should it be different here? All tiebreaks are played in a BO3 format.
While I really don't agree with Lavos first option (West vs Germany, loser plays NE), I think his 2nd is great.
The idea could be not to play a bo3 for each tiebreaker, but instead a complete set of 3 matches for all 3 match-ups, and rank the teams like in a sport league : points for winning a tiebreak (to have the team winning both tiebreaks go in 7th seed) then number of games won in said tiebreaks. The possibility for having all three teams equal are reduced, and the competitiveness is still present. If there is a tie between two teams for 8th seed, then they can play a regular tiebreak.
The idea could be not to play a bo3 for each tiebreaker, but instead a complete set of 3 matches for all 3 match-ups, and rank the teams like in a sport league : points for winning a tiebreak (to have the team winning both tiebreaks go in 7th seed) then number of games won in said tiebreaks. The possibility for having all three teams equal are reduced, and the competitiveness is still present. If there is a tie between two teams for 8th seed, then they can play a regular tiebreak.
For a team tournament of a game with RNG, the notion of a team securing playoffs via a 1 man round-robin is just weird in my opinion. The odds of the weakest team advancing can not be greater.
I agree with the posters above that a bo3 round-robin would be the ideal solution.
If time constraints take priority over everything else, the idea suggested by Earthworm and ludicrousman still looks better.
The other logical decision would be to look at head to head records to determine the 7th spot (West here), like it's usually done in non-Pokemon tournaments, especially since no rule covered this case (either that or Lavos post cannot be denied). Because at the end of the day, deciding the 7th spot with 1 man round-robin is conveniently ignoring round 1 head to head (6 games) for a new arbitrary head to head (3 games).
I agree with the posters above that a bo3 round-robin would be the ideal solution.
If time constraints take priority over everything else, the idea suggested by Earthworm and ludicrousman still looks better.
The other logical decision would be to look at head to head records to determine the 7th spot (West here), like it's usually done in non-Pokemon tournaments, especially since no rule covered this case (either that or Lavos post cannot be denied). Because at the end of the day, deciding the 7th spot with 1 man round-robin is conveniently ignoring round 1 head to head (6 games) for a new arbitrary head to head (3 games).
Last edited:
unpopular opinion: tiebreakers are bad overall and should overall aim to be removed when possible (tds here's your shot at making smogon grand prix have 9 slots instead of 10), and the above debate is part of the reason why. you're introducing an element of uncertainty once complex situations arise, apart from the omnipresent tournament delay issues and increased variance that small-scale tiebreakers bring, that could be avoided through simply utilizing the available metrics fully to separate teams. smogon is unlikely to be properly prepared for these kind of situations (flashbacks to slam) and it's unlikely that the method employed in Slam will remain in use for the future either way given how Smogon works. the upsides of tiebreakers tend to be argued as "high entertainment value" but that should be secondary to a proper tournament structure, which doesn't forfeit anything essential anyway given that tiebreakers aren't a guaranteed part of a tour.
soooo let's simplify tournaments and make them run on time for the first time and remove tiebreakers today.
i do not think that the proper move is to remove this tiebreaker since it'd be done without prior warning but in my ideal world the last tiebreakers on smogon are held in this tournament. regarding the format of the tiebreaks i agree with the previously mentioned idea that a 3v3v3 tiebreak where all games matter is preferable to the current method.
soooo let's simplify tournaments and make them run on time for the first time and remove tiebreakers today.
i do not think that the proper move is to remove this tiebreaker since it'd be done without prior warning but in my ideal world the last tiebreakers on smogon are held in this tournament. regarding the format of the tiebreaks i agree with the previously mentioned idea that a 3v3v3 tiebreak where all games matter is preferable to the current method.
Won against Spectear in SM OU
GG https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen7ou-384504
#Spain2019 #Delay
GG https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen7ou-384504
#Spain2019 #Delay
Re: concerns about precedent, what precedent are you actually referencing here? When we reviewed prior decisions to figure out how to handle this, we had to go back to 2012 to find another instance of a tiebreak being used to determine who qualifies for R2 of WCOP. I don't think that the 2012 situation is really relevant here either, as that was a five-team tiebreak at a time when WCOP was all CG OU, and the tiebreak that they used at that time actually had some serious flaws. And if we're talking precedent, there's actually multiple cases of Bo1 CG OU being used previously, going back as early as 2009 with South v US Metro v LA. None of those prior cases of precedent really apply here, though, so I think we can probably dismiss them. We chose this format because we thought it was the best option for the tour, not because of precedent.
Anyhow, folks asked for reasoning behind the tiebreak method, and that's a fair question. First, just to get this out of the way: the tiebreak method was ultimately chosen by the hosts, not the TD team as a whole. So, any criticism of it should be levied at me and Hikari, and not as some grand conspiracy theory cooked up by the TDs to prop up US Northeast.
Three way tiebreaks are super fucking awkward. There isn't really a good solution. We wanted something that was as fair as possible to all three teams, while also keeping the tour moving forward with as few bumps as possible.
We considered a Bo3 round robin, but I think it's way messier in practice than on paper. It's unlikely that it's going to be the same three players playing against both opponents, because probably US West, Germany and US Northeast are going to pick different gens versus different opponents. So you'll have 4 or 5 members from each team scheduling a couple of games across three time zones. That could easily end up getting pushed to more than a week before we even start considering recreates. During those weeks, we'll have six other teams twiddling their thumbs, losing momentum, schedules being pushed back, etc. I don't mind some delays in the interest of a fair solution, but dragging out team tours too long makes them way less fun for everyone.
So, we looked for an answer that...
1. ...could feasibly be completed in under two weeks, even accounting for recreates,
2. ...ensure that all teams play each other in at least some capacity, and
3. ...result in no team getting eliminated without at least playing a full tiebreak (including Bo3).
The advantage to the one person round robin to bring things down to a single pair is that it could feasibly be concluded by Thursday afternoon, and worst case scenario, we could do live recreates on Thursday until there was a winner. That would leave just a single Bo3 tiebreak to prep for, ideally able to be scheduled over the subsequent weekend. It also means that a team needs to lose both an SM OU Bo1 and a traditional Bo3 tiebreak to be eliminated, meaning there's actually less chance of one bad game ruining a team's chances at R2 than with a Bo3 RR tiebreak.
Is this unfair to teams that don't have a strong SM OU core? Well, no team gets eliminated without playing a full Bo3 tiebreak, so ideally it's not cutting anyone out solely because they are weak in a single gen. Also, all three teams in the tiebreak actually had a very similar performance in SM OU during Round 1 (8 wins for Germany and US NE, 7 for US West), so I'm not really sold that this is giving any particular team an advantage.
So yeah, that was our reasoning for the tiebreak method we chose. I don't know that there is a perfect solution, but this is the one that seemed to have the best balance of keeping the tour moving and keeping things fair for all three teams with 16 wins out of all the options we looked at.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not convinced this is the best way to do it and don't think the options were fully explored but it's not the end of the world if this method is used.
I would have preferred the tiebreaker I suggested in my previous post first, then if the teams are tied in both series won and games won, you could use your live SM tiebreak system after that. But maybe we can have this discussion in the tour policy forum later.
I would have preferred the tiebreaker I suggested in my previous post first, then if the teams are tied in both series won and games won, you could use your live SM tiebreak system after that. But maybe we can have this discussion in the tour policy forum later.
- Status