• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

UMPL VI - Format Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion on 2v2 bo7 is that its fun and obv lower variance but not the right call here. Unlike 1v1, it's not really a part of the tour history (last pl was the first edition to have it) and I think it significantly reduces the flexibility available for slotting, which is an especially large concern for the meta with the least amount of transferable skills to anything else in the tour.
 
tldr keep everything the same except maybe retains.


For Retains, I think the biggest question on them is what they add to the tour. In concept, they reward repeat managers who draft well with an advantage in the next iteration, alongside other stuff like preserving team identity.

If that's something that we want out of UMPL, expect out of UMPL, and want to foster in UMPL, I'm down for that.

I've not been around or involved long enough to know how often UMPL has repeat managers as opposed to new ones, but if we are expecting more new managers and want the tournament to reflect that, I see more value in not allowing retains.

If we do retains and cycle tiers in/out of UMPL, it makes sense for retains to only be eligible for tiers they originally signed up for. If the greatest 4v4DUU player is bought for 2v2 and then 4v4 is added next year, it makes sense to me that you can retain them for 2v2, but they would be tier locked out of 4v4. This is still a little messy if you factor in support, but if we want retains I think it has to work this way.

...that said I don't like it being messy if you factor in support, so if you think this was a valid concern, I'm opposed to retains. I guess the theoretical 2v2 player could just reject the retain and enter draft as a 4v4 player, but there's no way to promise or enforce that.
 
Alexw said:
3 slot of 1v1 ???
I’d like to hear the reasoning behind prioritizing quality over quantity—aside from just the number of slots—especially since the 2v2 pool was extremely competitive last year. I’m also curious why 1v1 was chosen over ZU or AG in terms of player base; adding a 1v1 slot strikes me as a ridiculous idea.
I forgot to mention this, but what does everyone think about having a Bo7 2v2 slot instead of one of the two Bo5 slots? Even though seven teams require a significant amount of vetting, I really enjoyed the Bo7 format during the 2v2PL; much like with 1v1, I think a Bo7 slot would only make the format feel even more team-oriented. tagging few 2v2 people that was involved either in last umpl or this 2v2pl because I am maybe the only one thinking that, who knows ? bern Razachu Hugo Despacito87 Kaif Blanched yuki Arcanine1929 sheepie Morgan crow crumbs fake tom numbers LogIce Arcanine1929 happysh mike AIRedzone Kochu_shak Chris32156 trace Kaif papiloco GigaBytes7 Concept
just by those pings and those people does not mention the new face of 2v2 that 2v2 deserve a second slot because the pool is really really competitive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
Personally I think having two 2v2 slots is fine. There's more than enough players to support having 2 slots and I rather keep slots as equal as possible over prioritizing tiers who have a larger playerbase. Only one slot would shrink players drafted for 2v2 (or any other tier too but 2v2 has a relatively smaller playerbase so it's more affected) by maybe half, excluding not only a lot of experienced players who want to play but also meaning new players have little to no chance of getting in at all.

Also don't agree with adjusting slots based on "popular" a tier is so we can let in more new players. The current size of a playerbase doesn't accurately reflect how many new players want to try it. More NFE and less 2v2 makes even less sense with this reasoning because 2v2 has a ladder and NFE doesn't so there's clearly less new players playing NFE than 2v2.

Also on Bo7 I'm not a fan.
 
Last edited:
me as me and not as CL though obviously that viewpoint bleeds into it.

UMFL - this tour was fine. bring it back identical to what it was. im not motivated by "let benched ppl/managers/ppl in offtiers play" seeing as baddy was an unbought manager. we barely avoided fc sandbagging ag for the hahas last year, i really am not motivated to have to manage a umfl complaints box because people aren't able to just let the farm league be a farm league.

12 slots - gods please don't change this. i haven't seen a good reason to change slots or expand. we rly have ppl going "remove 2v2 because...um...i want my favorite tier in" including someone legit suggesting 3x 1v1? wild. we have umcl which focuses on the non-umpl slots (i want to remove umpl formats from there as much as is reasonable but thats a later convo) and there are 0 tours that make 14 slots work (randbats does not count.) - we have an incredible format for our pl given the context, please keep it for as long as we can.

3rd manager - keep this. people are preparing to sign up as teams of 3 already. don't mess up their plans. it wasn't a problem last year.

Self buys - these were fine yeah. keep as is

Retains - let's do retains. there are a handful of legit reasons (and plenty of non-legit reasons) against it but i don't really see eye to eye with those reasons. we have a consistent format, much more consistent communit(y/ies), and i won't repeat the pro-retain arguments that exist since i just wanna make a quick post but like, the literal worst case situation is that we decide retains don't work here and drop it for next year.


now briefly me as a CL
UMFL, 3rd Manager - these seem pretty set, shouldn't need more conversations about these unless someone changes the public perception big time
Self buys - I see some pushback here? would like more thoughts from people who didnt like how Self buys were last year who haven't weighed in yet. even if its just "should be more"/"should be less"/whatever
12 slots, retains - really would like a lot more conversation here about these points
 
My thoughts on the major discussion points of this thread.

UMFL - I am a big fan of this tour and it should be brought back. I have thoughts about the tiers that should be run, but I assume that will be its own thread. As for limits on UMPL players/managers playing in UMFL, I am opposed to UMPL players and managers being allowed to play on the grounds that they have already proven themselves to be UMPL material, while UMFL players need the experience and exposure.

12 slots - Outside of a logistical miracle allowing for every UM tier to have multiple slots, I think the current arrangement is the best one we have.

3rd manager - I think 3 managers should be allowed as it increases the odds that a manager will be online to handle manager issues.

Self buys - Self-buys should be allowed as it allows managers to step in if a player is not around for a match and subs are unavailable/locked out of the tier as opposed to requiring a forfeit.

Retains - I oppose allowing retains as I believe it goes against the idea of a draft. While it can reward the managers for previous drafting success, it undercuts the idea of having to read the draft pool and determine who should be drafted and how much should be spent by allowing managers to have a prebuilt team, especially if retains are cheap enough to keep 6 (or enough to have a retain per each tier) over multiple drafts.
 
UMFL - the community seemed to view it as a success. Should it come back?
Absolutely. With these types of tournaments, there will always be newer/unproven players who miss out in UMPL, and this gives those players a chance to play similar formats in a team-tour environment, albeit with less pressure, with a chance of being considered for the next UMPL. More PLs are introducing FLs with great success (e.g. DFL/PUFF), so there's no reason why UMFL wouldn't be any different (e.g. If it's time-consuming, promote different managers for UMPL and UMFL).

12 slots - we added an NFE and 2v2 slot (for a total of two each) to bring our total slots to 12. Should we change this?
I'm going to be biased, but as someone who recently got into NFE and enjoyed it, I would love there to be another slot, maybe even a BO3 NFE slot? I think 2v2 is also pretty popular within the community, and it will hopefully bring more players to the tournament.

3rd manager - most teams had a third manager. Was it a success? Should we go back to two?
I think this depends on the team, how familiar each manager is with the formats and their commitment/availability throughout the tour. I think 2 or 3 managers won't make a huge amount of difference in my opinion.

Self buys - we had self-buys last year (max 2, priced at 17,500 given the player count total) and most teams bought at least one. Should this return?
I think managers should be able to self-buy, but how the price is determined per manager should be up for discussion.

Retains - we did not do retains at all last year. Part of the argument was that it was out of the blue, but now that we've had a year of them potentially arriving, do we want retains?
I have no strong opinion on this - some people will say it may give teams an unfair advantage (if said players accept the retains), on the other hand, starting completely fresh in the auction may spice things up.
 
Bazingatron said:
My thoughts on the major discussion points of this thread.

UMFL - I am a big fan of this tour and it should be brought back. I have thoughts about the tiers that should be run, but I assume that will be its own thread. As for limits on UMPL players/managers playing in UMFL, I am opposed to UMPL players and managers being allowed to play on the grounds that they have already proven themselves to be UMPL material, while UMFL players need the experience and exposure.

12 slots - Outside of a logistical miracle allowing for every UM tier to have multiple slots, I think the current arrangement is the best one we have.

3rd manager - I think 3 managers should be allowed as it increases the odds that a manager will be online to handle manager issues.

Self buys - Self-buys should be allowed as it allows managers to step in if a player is not around for a match and subs are unavailable/locked out of the tier as opposed to requiring a forfeit.

Retains - I oppose allowing retains as I believe it goes against the idea of a draft. While it can reward the managers for previous drafting success, it undercuts the idea of having to read the draft pool and determine who should be drafted and how much should be spent by allowing managers to have a prebuilt team, especially if retains are cheap enough to keep 6 (or enough to have a retain per each tier) over multiple drafts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
just for clarification since it seems you're unfamiliar with how retains work, retains usually work where its like last season price +3k, with a minimum price of 10k. Racking up more than 2-ish retains often just isn't a very viable idea in the majority of cases, as the number of high-value cheap retains realistically tends to be only a few within a given retain pool.
 
Finchely said:
just for clarification since it seems you're unfamiliar with how retains work, retains usually work where its like last season price +3k, with a minimum price of 10k. Racking up more than 2-ish retains often just isn't a very viable idea in the majority of cases, as the number of high-value cheap retains realistically tends to be only a few within a given retain pool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
To add onto this, retains are typically limited to a max of 2-3, so taking a whole roster wouldn’t be viable as finchley mentioned, nor allowed in general.
 
ME AS CL SPEAKING OFFICIALLY

Dave Wasserman tweeted "I've seen enough"
3 managers - No significant pushback here. Consider this locked in, no need to talk this anymore.

And now a few things that are "speak now or forever hold your peace"
Manager self-buy - There was some chatter about changing the way manager self buy costs work but otherwise I didn't see much discussion here, beyond how it would relate to retains
UMFL - Some folks want to expand who can play in UMFL but everyone seems to be onboard that it should continue to exist. Should privileges be expanded?
12 slots - There's some small pushes to change the formats in UMPL, but also some small pushes against that. As far as I can tell though, community sentiment seems to be keeping things the same?

Some community-raised points (excluding what fell under 12 slots or UMFL convos)
Franchises - Seems like it got brought up but like, the only two people who mentioned this were mostly against the idea. Don't really see this one taking flight all of the sudden.
2v2 Bo7 - Weigh-ins seemed mixed, a lot of the names that got pinged for this one didn't reply but the two that did were against it. Not super sure I'm excited about making this happen without seeing a large push for it from the 2v2ers?

And now the big one(s)
Retains -
So, I tallied the responses in thread to see what folks thought. Discord convos have happened and for the most part were more mixed, but I could be misremembering. Folks if you're gonna talk on Discord about your opinions please echo your thoughts here so there's a record and more folks see your thoughts! Specifically sleid and LittEleven IIRC had takes against retains but that never ended up in this thread. That said, there was a pretty strong sentiment in favor of retains here in the thread, I counted 10 people in favor, 4 people against, and 3 neutral or mixed (counting lettuce's as mixed and Bazingatron's as against, for full disclosure). To me that makes me think we're likely to do retains, but it's still an open discussion.

I want more thoughts here. Both on retains as a whole and whether we should do them, but also on more specific points:
- Right now manager self buys are limited to 2. If we add retains, do we do a max=3 of retains+self buys? That's the usual standard elsewhere to my knowledge, or do we want to keep to a limit of 2? I saw some conversation that floated the idea of staying at max=2 for both combined, but is that what the community wants?
- How much do we care about tierlocks from last year if we add retains? As an example, Lana locked out of AG (and a few other formats) last year, should she accept a retain this year, would it be expected that the 2025 tierlocks stayed in place? There hasn't really been anyone who touched on this as far as I can tell.


Please talk about retains!
If you want to talk about 2v2 Bo7 or franchises please only do so if you have strong arguments in favor of them.
If you want to talk about manager self-buy changes, UMFL, or formats, please bring something new to the table and back up your points with explanations.
Please talk about retains!
 
If we are doing retains, we have to carry over tierlocks. It prevents someone from abusing the system by locking into a tier they dont play where they can go for 3k, only to get retained next year for 10k in their main tier. I'd threaten to personally do this but im not 10k in my main tier LOL


As for UMFL, I think the audience of that tour is for people who don't get to play in UMPL. We can stretch that meaning to strictly lock out people on a UMPL roster in any capacity, or expand to allow people who aren't actively playing/starting.

Personally, I think it's fine to allow non-selfbought managers to play in UMFL. If I were managing in UMPL, it would be foolish of me personally to selfbuy just because I want to click buttons (im not 17.5k good), and I would be excited to have a shot to play in UMFL.

I'm less eager to allow people who havent started in UMPL by a certain week or UMPL players locked into unplayed tiers into UMFL. The identity of FL was set last year and didn't include either of those groups, and I don't think we need to change that.

I totally see the irony of 'let in pl managers' said in the same post as 'dont let in any pl players' but I do think that managers not selfbuying count as people who don't get to play in UMPL. What I'm saying is I want to draft jeza.p and a fairy in UMFL this year. It's totally fine if we decide not to allow that though.


I have no perspective on the max 3/4 retains + selfbuys (except max 2 selfbuys still either way). I think 4 would be cool since we are a large 12-slot tour, but at the same time we don't see 4 selfbuys in SPL/SCL (unless my 'those tours dont have ZU' is showing). Beginning a draft with 4/12 starters doesnt feel too unbalanced, its 33% of the draft with 3/10 being 30% and 3/8 being 37%.

That being said, retains don't have a universal 'we should do this,' so adding more + trying something new might not be a good idea.
 
pinged so unfortunately i will opine

- Right now manager self buys are limited to 2. If we add retains, do we do a max=3 of retains+self buys? That's the usual standard elsewhere to my knowledge, or do we want to keep to a limit of 2? I saw some conversation that floated the idea of staying at max=2 for both combined, but is that what the community wants?

imo yes, should go to three with managers + retains, with a maximum of 2 from either category (e.g allowing 1+2 or 2+1 but not 3+0)

- How much do we care about tierlocks from last year if we add retains? As an example, Lana locked out of AG (and a few other formats) last year, should she accept a retain this year, would it be expected that the 2025 tierlocks stayed in place? There hasn't really been anyone who touched on this as far as I can tell.

Is standard, should apply to all parts of the tour except for tiebreak.
quoting SPL,
Players that are retained will be locked into the same tiers that they were locked in the year prior.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
Believe we should just follow that ruleset. Retaining a player is something you do with consistent information in hand, and the most fair thing to do is have a strict ruleset on things like this.

For new tiers on addition, it is my preference that if you included any tierlock, retaining should mean you are tierlocked outside of the new tier. This would only really punish a small subsection of players who committed to a subsection of tiers last year, to carry that obligation forward. If someone was fine with playing any tier last year, retaining them and having them play in the new tier added seems kosher to me.

For example: If X and Y played last year, but X put AG in their Tiers not Played, while Y did not have a Tiers not Played -- and a new tier is added:
I would like the result to be that when retained:
X -> is tierlocked outside the new tier
Y -> is free to play whichever tier, including the new tier.

It is arguable that if e.g [insert government name of VGC UU] was added to this tournament, none of the people drafted last tournament would have been drafted for their skill at [government name of VGC UU]; and hence they really should not be retained to play that tier. But I feel like a different approach would be inconsistent with the current system of retains, and want to treat the people who chose not to tierlock with good faith.
 
don't do 2v2 bo7 bird has some good thoughts on it i won't bother repeating them

franchising is interesting and i could see it be good this year, would definitely try it out

no more changes pls and thanks in advance, manager signups go up on monday so if someone has anything to say it better be now or never.
 
About UMFL, I don't think UMPL non-playing managers should be allowed to play in it. This is a tournament made so that the newer players can grab some spotlight, and I would argue it goes against that purpose if someone well-known enough to be an UMPL manager decides to play.
lettuce said:
Personally, I think it's fine to allow non-selfbought managers to play in UMFL. If I were managing in UMPL, it would be foolish of me personally to selfbuy just because I want to click buttons (im not 17.5k good), and I would be excited to have a shot to play in UMFL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
I do see the merit in this kind of argument, but at the same time, manager self-buys are an extremely powerful resource, and just because you don't specifically use it, shouldn't make UMFL feel the impact.
lettuce said:
I totally see the irony of 'let in pl managers' said in the same post as 'dont let in any pl players' but I do think that managers not selfbuying count as people who don't get to play in UMPL. What I'm saying is I want to draft jeza.p and a fairy in UMFL this year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
It's definitely fun in theory, but then you will definitely find fully capable players that don't self-buy and now everyone wants them to guarantee a win every week in that slot. I imagine that you, lettuce, even if you don't think you should self-buy for UMPL, would go undeniably positive in UMFL. I managed last year and didn't self-buy, and if I were able to play in UMFL then its pretty safe to say I would also have an extremely positive record. I'm not trying to glaze myself, just pointing out that there will always be managers too qualified for UMFL, and it takes away from the up and coming ladder player that wants to prove themselves. Maybe if you force the managers to be locked out of any tier that they have played in prior UMPL/UMCL/UMBD it could work.

About retains, I would just like to second everything that LittEleven said. I think they covered all the relevant aspects and I agree that those should be the policies in place. I don't really have a strong argument against the people saying max 4, but I do think we should start with 3, and if next year that number wants to be raised, that can be a discussion for then.
 
I am against the retentions, but since it is going to happen anyway, we might as well try to minimize the damage to ensure the tournament is as competitive as possible. First, I’d like to elaborate on why I dislike retains A Fairy is right; I should have explained my reasoning to foster a real discussion rather than just stating "I like/dislike retains." On paper, retains are an incredibly powerful mechanic. Usually, they serve to lock in either a lesser-known player who has had a breakout performance since the last UMPL, or the best player in a specific tier whom the manager doubts they could acquire for a lower price otherwise. In both cases, I find it problematic to secure these types of players before the draft. Firstly, the team played no role in the player's development during their breakout year or when they proved themselves to be among the best in a given format; managers rush to claim them without having earned that right (even if they sometimes continue to offer support after the tournament, which I find very rare). That’s why I think retains are disgusting it’s simply managers snapping up a player with whom they have no real connection, effectively securing a top player at a bargain price. Secondly, the price + 3 formula for retains is terrible. I really like the strategy implemented by the 1v1 community, where managers vote among themselves to determine the self-buy or retain price (if I recall correctly). I want to clarify that I support a vote by players regarding retains, NOT self-buys.
Averaging the prices submitted by the captains seems like a good idea to me. However, if a player's price were to increase by more than 15k, I think we should stick to a formula like last year's price + 12k (applied only if the calculated average increase exceeds 15k). This would legitimize the "price + 3" jump for breakout players, while for players who already have a massive cost, I doubt their price would rise significantly.
The number of The maximum number of Retains plus Self-Buys should be three, with a limit of two Self-Buys; three Retains using the formula I mentioned earlier seem to more than compensate for the strategic advantage that Retains provide. If the Retain formula would be last year price +3K, I think we should do maximum of retain possible 2 tho. if budget is the same ( the budget was perfect last year) 17.5k for each selfbuy is perfect
The 2v2 mainers who spoke were all on the same spot about 2v2 bo7, it seems like i'm the only one in favor of it so just give up on this idea.
maximum 4 retain and self buy combined is terribly stupid please don't do that, we still want umpl to be competitive right ?
 
mentioning here since it seems that not everyone are all on the same page about player retentions: a player who a manager is attempting to retain must also agree to that retention. There are no 'unethical retains' where a player is forced to be retained to a team they don't wish to join. Of course this hypothetical team could get the hypothetical player in the auction anyways, but that's a separate matter.
 
Gonna provide some pushback on these ideas in the spirit of civil discourse as requested by my bestie a fairy

Alexw said:
I am against the retentions, but since it is going to happen anyway, we might as well try to minimize the damage to ensure the tournament is as competitive as possible. First, I’d like to elaborate on why I dislike retains A Fairy is right; I should have explained my reasoning to foster a real discussion rather than just stating "I like/dislike retains." On paper, retains are an incredibly powerful mechanic. Usually, they serve to lock in either a lesser-known player who has had a breakout performance since the last UMPL, or the best player in a specific tier whom the manager doubts they could acquire for a lower price otherwise. In both cases, I find it problematic to secure these types of players before the draft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
The idea that "retains are a powerful mechanic" as you say is frankly just overblown. Retains in isolation have virtually no bearing on what teams will succeed or fail. A retain is only as powerful as the team surrounding it, if you have a broken retain but a mid draft it won't make a difference. Now in the hands of a good manager retains can definitely be potent, but again are very rarely a bane to competitive integrity. Many retained players do not even come close to their performance from the year prior. Retains only provide a foundation for a draft; that is, people you know you can work well with and do not cost more than you would be willing to bid in auction. It won't make or break a tour and if anything I have seen more teams sabotaged by bad retains than carried by good retains, so it is another test of manager skill that you are making the optimal choices for your team.

Alexw said:
Firstly, the team played no role in the player's development during their breakout year or when they proved themselves to be among the best in a given format; managers rush to claim them without having earned that right (even if they sometimes continue to offer support after the tournament, which I find very rare). That’s why I think retains are disgusting it’s simply managers snapping up a player with whom they have no real connection, effectively securing a top player at a bargain price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
I would certainly never take credit for a player's success, but who's to say that first experience didn't shape their development? I have landed on teams that certainly made me more invested in a tier than I was before the tour and I have landed on teams that have completely destroyed my motivation to play a certain tier. There is also the case of support; veteran managers and teammates can most definitely help newer players hone their skills thereby contributing to their future success as well.

I also do not quite understand the language that these managers did not "earn the right to claim them." As I said in UM cord, star players don't just fall into your lap. Getting such value out of your players is more often the result of good manager work rather than random chance. In UM cord I used my scouting of Baddy in ADPL to try and prove this point, but I think that came across as me just stroking my ego. So here I'll do the opposite, let's talk about a case where I failed:

I'm gonna tip my hat to PlayaBeavs for this one. As with most of my drafts I did extensive homework on the player pool from last UMPL to formulate a draft plan. Beavs was someone on my board, but I did not appraise him as someone likely to put on a truly spectacular showing. I am not ashamed to admit that I was very wrong. Beavs put up a 6-3 record and just ended ZUPL with a 5-2 record. Clearly the Mane Removers saw something in Beavs that I didn't, so in what sense did they not earn those retain rights? When we draft players who are less established, we are essentially placing a bet on their potential with an understanding that this comes with the risk of that player flopping. I didn't place that bet on Beavs, so why should I profit off of the Mane Removers who did? It makes sense to me that the managers who were willing to take on the risk get to benefit when their bet pays off, just as the first people to invest in Bitcoin are now richer than anyone who chose to invest later. This is why being able to accurately assess a player's ceiling becomes an even more pertinent skill when retains are on the table.

Alexw said:
Secondly, the price + 3 formula for retains is terrible. I really like the strategy implemented by the 1v1 community, where managers vote among themselves to determine the self-buy or retain price (if I recall correctly). I want to clarify that I support a vote by players regarding retains, NOT self-buys.
Averaging the prices submitted by the captains seems like a good idea to me. However, if a player's price were to increase by more than 15k, I think we should stick to a formula like last year's price + 12k (applied only if the calculated average increase exceeds 15k). This would legitimize the "price + 3" jump for breakout players, while for players who already have a massive cost, I doubt their price would rise significantly.
The number of The maximum number of Retains plus Self-Buys should be three, with a limit of two Self-Buys; three Retains using the formula I mentioned earlier seem to more than compensate for the strategic advantage that Retains provide. If the Retain formula would be last year price +3K, I think we should do maximum of retain possible 2 tho. if budget is the same ( the budget was perfect last year) 17.5k for each selfbuy is perfect
Click to expand...
Click to collapse...
1v1 did not use that process for retain pricing, that was just for manager pricing. Every tour that does retains uses the same formula (previous price + 3k, set at a minimum of 10k). This is something universal and would pose a radical change to tournament structure if we differed. I do not think UMs are the place to get experimental when the community is still so young. A limit of 3 pre-draft purchases between self-bought managers and retains is also pretty standard and does not typically pose any problems. You will rarely ever see a team maxing out their pre-draft purchases, and even when teams do elect to do so it is either 1) not a good idea or 2) not significant enough to determine the viability of a team.

Separate point but I don't really like the language you've been using. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but to say we need to "minimize the damage that retains will do" or that they are "disgusting" is just disingenuous, retains will not cause the next apocalypse I promise we'll be fine. Even if we find that retains are not well-suited for UMPL it will not completely destroy the competitive integrity of this year's season. It just seems like bad faith arguing to use such strong language as if retains could actually have such a disastrous effect on the tour. I think it is fair to say that whether retains end up being a good or bad idea in the long run, objectively speaking there is no chance they could completely ruin anyone's experience in UMPL.
 
Thank you all.

3 managers - We are leaving this as is.
Manager self-buy - We are leaving this as is.
UMFL - Will happen in much the same way it happened before. Feel free to take to Discord convos if you want changes here, there will not be a UMFL format discussion thread.
12 slots - Formats will remain the same as they were last year.
Franchises - Will not be mandated on a mechanical level.
Retains - We will try out retains this year with the understanding that they will not be default expected to return in future years and the format discussion thread will validate or reject it moving forward. We will use standard retain rules seen across Smogon for pricing, limit teams to 3 "pre-auction purchases", and hold retains to their binding TNPs from their original signup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top