Announcement UM Team Tour 2 - Format Discussion

[a fairy]

Hello there! We have a few weeks before the start of our secondary team tour here in the top layer of UMs. As of right now, the world is our oyster, we have a very wide range of options and possibilities, from a world cup to an old gens tour to a blind draft to a flex slot tour to something else entirely. We need to both decide the format of the tournament, as well as what metagames are included. The UM CLs withhold the right to determine the nature of how and when these decisions are made.

Things that are not up for debate about this tournament:

• This will be a team tournament. We will not be running an individual tournament in this slot.
• This tournament will have a CA prize. This means we are limited to whatever would be reasonably expected to be approved by PS admins for a CA tournament, which is not a significant limitation but may mean that particularly outside-the-box thinking may be unable to be acted on if it would result in the CA prize being rescinded.
• We are not going to run formats that are not under the UMs umbrella, and while there is not a strict definition on what this means, you're welcome to run potential stuff by me. I am open to being reasonable, but this is a tour for UMs. Not "could be a UM let's try it out", not "close to the UMs community", not "UM with a challenge code twist".
• This is not UMPL. We will not be running UMPL's structure again, any tournament must have some meaningful distinction from UMPL.
• We are running the tournament around where the time on the schedule thread says it will be ran. Whether that's manager signups or player signups is somewhat flexible (though preferentially is player signups), but "let's punt this to june" isn't on the table. There are a lot of UM format team tournaments, and this slot is well positioned to reduce overlap with those tournaments as much as possible.

With all of that said, most of these are just basic ground rules. No kidding the UM team tour is a team tour about UMs, yknow? But given that we have truly a huge range of possibilities, I did want to set a few ground rules for discussion. Please do not waste this thread on single-line posts like "free umwc" or "jail umwc" - I will delete and potentially infract these. Let's have a conversation - leave chatter to the Discord and PS rooms, we need to have a good insight into what the community thinks when we make this decision, given that no matter what decision is made, there will be some people unhappy with it. Not everyone is going to agree, so we need more than Discord throwaway comments here.

Will ping some folks who I'd quite like to hear their opinions: entrocefalo Rose Felucia lost heros Tuthur sleid Celeste Kry yuki zastra Clas gephicka dhelmise

 

[a fairy]

Me as me. I expect that my involvement in this tour will be either as a player signing up as equally as everyone else, or as a host, formally or not. That being said, I do have pretty strong opinions on a small part of the tournament structure, and with full disclosure, it will be one that shapes how I as a CL guide the final conversations of what this tournament should be. It is my opinion that Monocolor and 4v4 Doubles UU are as close to mandatory presences in this tournament as you can get.

UMPL is, in my opinion, a solved tournament. We can run what we did in 2025 again into infinity, only ever needing to change it should one of the included formats become a standalone format untethered to UMs logistical layer and therefore not valid for a UM team tour further past that point. Should such a time come, discussion can happen, but UMPL represents a, however you define or call it, core subsect of UMs. Whether it's "the original 6" or "the biggest" or "the longest-lived" or whatever, I don't really care how you define it. The reality to me is that any definition when it comes to UMPL must include all six and that further expansion at the cost of any of those six seems unreasonable.

Both of these tournaments are planned to have had a ladder spotlight by the time this tournament begins, bringing further testing and development to these metagames before they hold presence in a team tournament. Monocolor and 4v4 Doubles UU have proven to be structurally sound metagames, with established communities and resources, and both should be considered shoo-ins for presence in this team tournament. Whether it's WC or a flex slot tour or even some big chungus friend tour, I kinda don't care (I care a lot but I don't have strong opinions), but we are doing a great disservice to the larger community, the future of the UMs as a section, and the communities of Monocolor and 4v4 Doubles UU if we approach this tournament in a way that disregards the potential we have to expand the community and create a strong team tournament that has a distinct identity to UMPL.

So, bless the world we live in, we have the opportunity to mold our second CA team tour into something that allows UMs as a whole to grow, to spotlight new potential formats in our generation and in future ones, and we should start that here and now. There will be more metagames in the future, I know for myself I already intend to bring up one idea for the start of Gen 10 should it not materialize into existence before then. Let's start this tournament off on the right foot.

 

[Horii]

Personally talking about the 2nd tour i would like to see it being umwcop and see how it'll end up, last year it was UM blind draft which was fine but also not very fun and talking about umcl its basically the same as umbd but with a proper auction- umbd also had flex slots unless we're talking about 6 slots + 6 flexs in umcl? that's open to discussion so both of the tours arent very different from each other (i feel).

 

[maybca]

hi, this is maybca's point of wiew, and if you don't agree, reply to this so we can argue, ( i'm opposed to world cup, i'm for cl or blind draft, but blind draft need a re work)
One of the biggest issues with a World Cup format is that teams are determined by players regions (country/continent), which inherently creates imbalance: some regions simply have way more high-level players in certain UMs than others. That means a region with an extremely strong player base in a specific UM could dominate, while a region with only a few mains in that tier gets left behind — even if they have talented players. This is often referred to as “birthplace roulette”, where players competitive opportunities are tied to where they were born rather than how good they are.
Example : In case i would like to play nfe during world cup, i would bench or or I'll be moved to another tier because pandadoux is much better than me in SV NFE.


For example:

• If Region A has multiple strong SV UUbers players and Region B has only one, Region A gets a huge advantage, you would say : yes but it doesn't determine the game, ok ye i agree, but player from region A would have less way fun at prep, and might have no help at all, even if they will win the end will be the same, they will not have fun.
• A second-best player in a region might never play because the best gets the slot, even if they’re arguably better than everyone in another region.

This essentially punishes players for their region, not their skill.

2. Smaller Regions Can’t Field Full Rosters
Because World Cups require a full team across multiple UM formats, smaller or less active regions won’t have enough high-level players to fill their slots. This leads to forced region combining or rest-of-world teams, which undermines the purpose of “regional representation.” Without that combining, some regions simply won’t be competitive, and with combining, the identity of the region gets blurred.

3. Every Player Doesn’t Get a Fair Shot
Under World Cup rules, the top player from each region gets priority over the second or third best, regardless of how close their skill levels are. This can feel extremely unfair for example, a second-best player in a deep region could be objectively stronger than a region’s best in another spot, yet never be able to compete at all.


This contrast creates a competitive imbalance that reduces overall tournament quality and player morale.

4. World Cup Isn’t Great for Meta Growth
A World Cup restricts teams by region, which means often the metagame develops separately within regions, and cross-region meta interaction becomes limited. That’s not as beneficial to the community as formats that encourage mixing players across regions and skill types, like draft-based leagues or CL-style auctions (UMCL), which encourages broader competition and strategy diversity.

why i am for UMCL ?
1. Competitive Equity for Players
Draft or auction formats like UMCL give every player a real shot to play because it doesn’t depend on region. The focus is on player skill and team building, not geography. This removes the “birthplace roulette” effect entirely.

2. More Strategic Depth
A draft or flex slots system where teams can choose which UMs they want to field adds a layer of strategic planning. Teams have to consider which UMs they want to prioritize and how to counter opponents picks.


3. Helps Newer or Less Played UMs
The two newer UMs in question have a chance to be actively included and played in a draft structure because teams choose their slots. In a World Cup format, regions that don’t have mains in those UMs might simply pass on them, leading to less representation. In a draft or CL-style setup, teams are encouraged to diversify, so those UMs get more exposure. flex slots also encourage developpement of meta, by adding more games to them, it's all about draftplan strats but it still gives to a meta more showing than world cup could.


4. More Inclusive and Fun for Players
Drafted leagues tend to make it so more players even those not at the top of the ladder get meaningful participation. This generally leads to a healthier scene with more engagement, especially for UMs that are still developing community interest.

Blind draft re work :
Last year we had umbd, where i was one of the managers. At first i liked the style, but i don't really know why every managers decided to vote for the dumbest choice, we had to choose between :The option 1 was to get the second most expensive bid on the player by adding 0.5 to the price , or to add 0.5 to the price we put in the box. However, as you may have noticed, the first option was chosen, and it made the draft completely ridiculous and not competitive at all. I remember very well spending, I think, 30k for Yuki, for example, and the second most expensive player was 12k. According to the rules, I was right to do that because Yuki was the last person in my draft plan for the 2v2. However, in hindsight, I find it quite ridiculous not to be punished for spending 30k and getting Yuki for 12k. I think that by choosing the second option, the draft would immediately become much more interesting, and the managers would have a much harder time making the right choices. I also find it much more competitive and fun to watch/do.
So :
1) UMCL/UMBD ( with the re work i suggested or an other re work but with the second option) ( 10 slots) 8 um + 2 flex slots, or 8 + 4, but 12 slots might be a lot, i don't really know
2) World cup
3) Same UMBD as last year.

 

[Celeste]

Writing some ideas I have while I'm in class, might elaborate more but I don't have any super strong opinion on what actually happens

UMBD
Yeah no, I think how flex slots felt in this tour just wasnt great since it let teams focus a lot on specific slots, and didn't lead to as much variety as I think we could see from a tour like this. Also, I think a blind draft is cool in theory and kind of rough in practice ngl. I would not like to see this come back.

UMWC
I believe this is doable, it seems we do have interest despite the fact that WCs are kind of a shot in the dark when it comes to balancing things out, and can lead to some more staunch inbalances. I think that if it were to be run, it would be best to just have it be 1 each of AG, 1v1, UUbers, NFE, ZU, 2v2, Monocolour, and Doubles UU. I don't think this format lends itself well to any form of flex slots, and the only way we could really expand this is probably by doubling up on an AG/1v1/ZU slot to reach 10 slots, or opting to remove Monocolour and DUU and doing 2 each of our UMPL formats which would be sad tbh, I think the formats deserve a chance to shine and UMWC in this way would just mean UMPL with jerk teams. There is probably a way this could be made to work, but it would require more planinng from people who aren't me before I could really support it.

I do want to disagree with Maybca on some points, even if I am not the biggest fan of UMWC as a format.

2. Smaller Regions Can’t Field Full Rosters
Because World Cups require a full team across multiple UM formats, smaller or less active regions won’t have enough high-level players to fill their slots. This leads to forced region combining or rest-of-world teams, which undermines the purpose of “regional representation.” Without that combining, some regions simply won’t be competitive, and with combining, the identity of the region gets blurred.

I think as long as proper handling of this comes from the Mod team, this won't be an issue. In the recent UWC, 2/4 of these combination teams were able to make playoffs in a 20 team tour (being Asia, and Europe), while teams like LATAM which have a lot of strong players ended up finishing dead last, despite fielding a pretty decent roster. It feels like you have correctly identified the issue that is solved by combining regions to preserve competative integrity, and decided that it is an issue anyways. I get the idea of wanting to preserve "identity" of regions (and perhaps as someone from Canada I'm biased, tho note that in 1v1WC canada merged with some of the US) but its unreasonable for us to say that the format shouldn't be done for these reasons. If the hosts manage it well, merges will be done in a way where players will not be punished for their country not being able to form, leaving this as something I would consider somewhat of a non-argument.

3. Every Player Doesn’t Get a Fair Shot
Under World Cup rules, the top player from each region gets priority over the second or third best, regardless of how close their skill levels are. This can feel extremely unfair for example, a second-best player in a deep region could be objectively stronger than a region’s best in another spot, yet never be able to compete at all.

This one is fair, but this is also why WCs for formats like this tend to include multiple slots for the larger format. While it would be unfortunate if a region happened somehow have say 3/5 best players of a given format, subs and multiple weeks exist to attempt to alleviate this. I do overall agree with this though. I think it is one of the most notable issues with WC, and also what leads to unbalanced teams, largely out of control of the players. I know that CAPWC dodged this, but it is a semi-consistent issue that is worth discussing.

4. World Cup Isn’t Great for Meta Growth
A World Cup restricts teams by region, which means often the metagame develops separately within regions, and cross-region meta interaction becomes limited. That’s not as beneficial to the community as formats that encourage mixing players across regions and skill types, like draft-based leagues or CL-style auctions (UMCL), which encourages broader competition and strategy diversity.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly, as I think with some small exceptions, region's approaches to metas are not all the same. For example, Iride, FC, feen and I all have vastly different approaches to UUbers, and I feel like i have benefited from discussing my ideas with them because of their different approach. Is this really limiting meta growth just because FC and I both happen to be Canadian? Is our contribution to UUbers harming meta growth because of that fact? Even if we did agree on our meta takes, does the fact that fact that Iride and I teamed in UUBPL mean that I never interacted with the rest of the community? This is not a good argument, as it implies that UMCL would inherently create more meta growth, which you cannot really prove beyond this assumption that each region will always be an echo chamber where everyone agrees on how a given meta works, and also leverages an assumption that UMWC would result in all meta growth being slowed to a halt because no inter-communication between teams happens. During UMPL, I reached out to Taka because I found his ideas interesting, and thought his meta ideas were something worth leaning about, and ultimately vouched for his spot on UUbers council because of this. I would hope that other players would be able to have the open-mindedness to welcome ideas outside of the people they team with.

Even in a UMCL environment, you can't discount the idea that people may draft in a way to get people they know work well together and have similar ideas, which would create the exact scenario that would make UMWC a problem according to you. Idk, I think there are good reasons to advocate against WC but I'm not sure that this illustrates that well.

UMCL
I like this idea, and believe this is the option that leaves us with the most ability to facilitate the inclusion of other formats, but it does raise the question of how exactly we handle it. The way it makes sense most in my head is probably 6 Set slots and 6 flex slots with each team picking 3, meaning the setup would be sm like this:

UMCL Slot Idea

MAIN SLOTS:
AG
1v1
2v2
NFE
Ubers UU
ZU

6x Flex Slots, each team picks 3
Main slots + the option for Monocolour and Doubles UU

I think this does allow for the flex slots to feel a lot less unbalanced then they did in UMBD, allowing for much more strategy and requiring more diverse drafts to allow for more thorough coverage of the formats. That being said, it does create an opposite issue where the tour could have over-represented "main" ums. This could maybe be solved by choosing some of the more long-standing UMs (AG/1v1/ZU) to be the main starter slots, and then removing them from the flex pool? I'd be interested to here how people are interested in running a UMCL, because it is certainly the format that excites me the most.

Overall, I support
1. UMCL
Distant 2nd: UMWC
Never Touch it with a 41 1/2 Foot Pole Grinch Style: UMBD

 

[gephicka]

speaking for only 4v4duu as that's obviously my area,
i'd generally second maybca's points about world cup, our playerbase is distributed in such a way that we probably wouldn't end up with the highest quality or most interesting games (which is half of the point of a teamtour anyways) because a lot of the talent is centralized in a few places

i would greatly prefer UMCL with a dedicated 4v4duu & monocolor slot— i know of a significant amount of both VGC & doubles players who would absolutely be willing to pick up 4v4duu in a team tour (especially for a CA prize) and would generally prefer that it's as accessible as possible to players regardless of region, giving us the room to field both doubles clickers and established 4v4duu community members.

i felt very positively about UMs vs the World and regardless of what's actually decided I'd be delighted to have 4v4duu in a another team tour :)