Announcement BLT X Format Discussion

Theia

Say hello to the robots
is a Tournament Directoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnus
User Safety Lead
Hi everyone! BLT X is right around the corner, with manager signups in about a week and Cycle One starting March 16th. Since this is a new generation and we've gotten quite a bit of feedback from the community over the last couple of editions, we'd love to hold a discussion about the format of this year's tournament.

Points of discussion include:
1. The format of the tournament - Typical format is 2x OU, 1x Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, Monotype. SV PU should be an Actual Format by the end of Cycle One of qualifiers.
2. HOME - How do we want to handle HOME if it drops during the tour itself (timelined for "Spring 2023")?
3. Points for qualifying - BLT IX's point cutoff was 30 points. Is this a good number? Does this need to be adjusted at all?
4. Other - Any other points of discussion that you feel are important.

Looking forward to your feedback, thanks so much in advance!
 
Agree with what arce9 said fully, but would like to discuss a shorter qualifying period. This was a common issue amongst participants last year and many think 1 week qualifying cycles would be better
 
Agree with what arce9 said fully, but would like to discuss a shorter qualifying period. This was a common issue amongst participants last year and many think 1 week qualifying cycles would be better
I think in this case the duration for the cycles fits since HOME meta is soon which most people will tend to need time for to get used to. Plus there’s already a set schedule for the circuit which includes BLT.
 

BlackKnight_Gawain

PUPL Champion
So I was thinking like BLT is a tour we put on as a room, and like all big tours it ends up attracting a lot of players who are tour-proven but may not necessarily be active in the room, and managers are obviously inclined to pick better/known players.

Personally, I think it disincentivizes people who've put in a lot of effort already grinding and active in the room aside from BLT period. I was thinking if there's any way to actually reward people or ease their participation requirements for already being active in room cycles so far, and while the argument might be that since if players are good enough to be on leaderboards now they can do top 8 or at least 30 points come qual cycles, it still feels a little less disingenuous for a room hosted big tour to not allow more scope for active room players over outsiders.

Hence I'm proposing the two ideas below:

1) Expanding the roster to at least allow top 15-20 annuals to have a fairer shot at being selected instead of being pushed out during qual cycles

2) Change the qual system to allow previous grinders a better shot (having ~200-300 points prior to BLT qual cycle 1 seems like a fair cutoff since all of top 10 + next few spots are hovering around that mark at the moment)


Alternative suggestions are welcome, but I really would like a system that gives a bit more scope to room community to be more involved and have a better chance to prove themselves versus having to work twice as hard again during what is already a hectic grinding period.
 
Agree with what arce9 said fully, but would like to discuss a shorter qualifying period. This was a common issue amongst participants last year and many think 1 week qualifying cycles would be better
The best alternative to this that I could think of is making it top 16 and over 2 cycles instead of 8 and 4. I'm not against the idea personally and it's worth discussing if anyone has any other ideas cycles are 2 weeks normally and while we could swap to 1 I feel like 2 16s is better a longer cycle to me gives folks that have less time more fair of a chance
 
Last edited:

Baloor

Tigers Management
is a Community Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
PUPL Champion
hi, what about to suggest might seem insane to some tournament room regulars considering how disliked the current gen ou is no matter what but hear me out.

I think 3 SV OU slots will benefit this tour a lot. At this current moment, SV OU is white hot and has gained a lot of popularity with the casual community, with the ou room, ladder, and forums being the most active they have been in a long time. With this development, I think for the growth of the room and to keep casual interest in the tour it would be a real missed opportunity to not give OU more spotlight this time around. With all the players that come in from outside communities, 2 OU slots are pretty tight in terms of who is being drafted / who can play so making the tier more accessible is a good idea. There is also a lot of people from lower tiers who picked up SV OU recently and are doing quite well who are staples in this tournament (TheFranklin / Kythr for example) so adding another OU slot and giving more flexibility actually benefits the lower tier pools as well. People are only going to be more invested in the tour with home coming out, so I think for at least this year that we should seriously consider this.

This would mean either needing to drop a tier or adding an additional one. Personally, I feel nixing PU this year is the most logical call as it will be the most underdeveloped tier by a landslide by the time home comes around with how Alpha phases and tier shifts work. This will upset PU players but it's hard to argue that the tier will likely be very messy and generally barren for the most part until home shifts which won't happen till the later parts of this tour if the timeline is what we expect it to be. Adding another slot for one of the formats that have been around just as long as SV OU is an option to hit 12 slots. These tiers being; Ubers, LC, DOU and Mono. Ubers has a notably smaller community than the latter two and is particularly uninteresting atm so its prob fine to not consider it. LC is in sort of the same boat as Ubers where the community is small and the tier being pretty messy. LC players are far more diehard for the tier than Ubers players are but I feel LC is too niche to reasonably give it a 2nd slot? If there's interest I'm fine with it but just thinking from a general standpoint I don't think it would make sense. DOU is particularly niche compared to the rest of the slots but has a large community so can sustain the second slot. I think if taking this approach though the best option is mono. The tier is incredibly popular in the room and has a large community so it most definitely can sustain the second slot, lots of people are playing Mono in general right now thanks to tours like Monotype World Cup and influence from youtubers. Mono is pretty matchup based though so I don't know how I feel about it, but there are players who are consistently amazing in the tier such as Trichtonomy and mushamu who prove that type matchup isn't necessarily everything regularly. Another option is to include a metagame like CAP and NatDex which are notably smaller communities but have been around SV since month one, there is interest in these tiers and where their good players will come from the outside to play them given the tournament prize. I think adding Randbats is a bad idea as Randbats is way too niche and, well, random to take seriously in a competitive tournament. Some might draw a comparison to Mono as a counterpoint here but there are more options in builder and game to nullify sine of the random elements in Mono when Randbats is constantly the wild west. Also having Randbats in a tiebreak situation fucking sucks and should be enough to nix this suggestion all together. Finally adding a SS OU slot also puts you at 12 slots, personally, I think this is a fine option but not sure how interesting people would be in this given that there is out a lot of burnout with SS currently. Though, SPL has proven this tier gets far more shit than deserved with incredible games every week.

Alternatively, a bo3 slot including SV OU, SV UU, SV RU that cannot be selected in a tiebreak scenario, is an option that showcases all these SV tiers even more and think is more possible than ever in BLT due to how popular SV is in general at the moment. Though prepping 4 SV OU teams might be insanely overkill in a more casual setting like BLT. Maybe you can do the 2 Regular SV OU slots, a bo3 slot then add another one of the options i suggested? just spitballing ideas.

I think 3 SV OU slots in some form, whether that is through 2 regular slots and a bo3 or straight up 3 slots, should seriously be considered. There are far too many pros for this tournament to not include a third slot in some capacity. 2 SV OU slots is simply too little for how popular the tier is right now. With OU being smogons flagship format, it deserves another slot in some form.

Also please reduce the qualification phase. 4 cycles, 2 weeks each is insanely obnoxious and people lose interest before the tour even starts due to how long it takes.

edit: also SV OU council is super active in balancing the tier compared to other tiers so it will likely be in a playable state within a few weeks of home coming out. this isnt a knock on lower tier councils but mostly just acknowledging how active the ou council is at the moment which is mostly due to the popularity of the tier. which only makes me more confident that 3 sv ou slots is the way to go this time around given the mess that will be the home drop.
 
Last edited:
hi, what about to suggest might seem insane to some tournament room regulars considering how disliked the current gen ou is no matter what but hear me out.

I think 3 SV OU slots will benefit this tour a lot. At this current moment, SV OU is white hot and has gained a lot of popularity with the casual community, with the ou room, ladder, and forums being the most active they have been in a long time. With this development, I think for the growth of the room and to keep casual interest in the tour it would be a real missed opportunity to not give OU more spotlight this time around. With all the players that come in from outside communities, 2 OU slots are pretty tight in terms of who is being drafted / who can play so making the tier more accessible is a good idea. There is also a lot of people from lower tiers who picked up SV OU recently and are doing quite well who are staples in this tournament (TheFranklin / Kythr for example) so adding another OU slot and giving more flexibility actually benefits the lower tier pools as well. People are only going to be more invested in the tour with home coming out, so I think for at least this year that we should seriously consider this.

This would mean either needing to drop a tier or adding an additional one. Personally, I feel nixing PU this year is the most logical call as it will be the most underdeveloped tier by a landslide by the time home comes around with how Alpha phases and tier shifts work. This will upset PU players but it's hard to argue that the tier will likely be very messy and generally barren for the most part until home shifts which won't happen till the later parts of this tour if the timeline is what we expect it to be. Adding another slot for one of the formats that have been around just as long as SV OU is an option to hit 12 slots. These tiers being; Ubers, LC, DOU and Mono. Ubers has a notably smaller community than the latter two and is particularly uninteresting atm so its prob fine to not consider it. LC is in sort of the same boat as Ubers where the community is small and the tier being pretty messy. LC players are far more diehard for the tier than Ubers players are but I feel LC is too niche to reasonably give it a 2nd slot? If there's interest I'm fine with it but just thinking from a general standpoint I don't think it would make sense. DOU is particularly niche compared to the rest of the slots but has a large community so can sustain the second slot. I think if taking this approach though the best option is mono. The tier is incredibly popular in the room and has a large community so it most definitely can sustain the second slot, lots of people are playing Mono in general right now thanks to tours like Monotype World Cup and influence from youtubers. Mono is pretty matchup based though so I don't know how I feel about it, but there are players who are consistently amazing in the tier such as Trichtonomy and mushamu who prove that type matchup isn't necessarily everything regularly. Another option is to include a metagame like CAP and NatDex which are notably smaller communities but have been around SV since month one, there is interest in these tiers and where their good players will come from the outside to play them given the tournament prize. I think adding Randbats is a bad idea as Randbats is way too niche and, well, random to take seriously in a competitive tournament. Some might draw a comparison to Mono as a counterpoint here but there are more options in builder and game to nullify sine of the random elements in Mono when Randbats is constantly the wild west. Also having Randbats in a tiebreak situation fucking sucks and should be enough to nix this suggestion all together. Finally adding a SS OU slot also puts you at 12 slots, personally, I think this is a fine option but not sure how interesting people would be in this given that there is out a lot of burnout with SS currently. Though, SPL has proven this tier gets far more shit than deserved with incredible games every week.

Alternatively, a bo3 slot including SV OU, SV UU, SV RU that cannot be selected in a tiebreak scenario, is an option that showcases all these SV tiers even more and think is more possible than ever in BLT due to how popular SV is in general at the moment. Though prepping 4 SV OU teams might be insanely overkill in a more casual setting like BLT. Maybe you can do the 2 Regular SV OU slots, a bo3 slot then add another one of the options i suggested? just spitballing ideas.

I think 3 SV OU slots in some form, whether that is through 2 regular slots and a bo3 or straight up 3 slots, should seriously be considered. There are far too many pros for this tournament to not include a third slot in some capacity. 2 SV OU slots is simply too little for how popular the tier is right now. With OU being smogons flagship format, it deserves another slot in some form.

Also please reduce the qualification phase. 4 cycles, 2 weeks each is insanely obnoxious and people lose interest before the tour even starts due to how long it takes.
didn't really have any strong opinions before this, but after reading this post, quite heavily agree, I'd lean on the side of 3x OU (no PU), especially bc lower tiers generally take quite a long time to actually settle down, and the first few months will be extremely volatile (even UU/RU/NU etc. will be pretty messy esp if home drops right before/during BLT). I'd also second the lowering the qual time, I'd be down for either 2 cycles of 2 weeks w/ a top 16 or a top 8 of 4 cycles of 1 week (lowering the general qual bar down to like 15 or 20 or smthg)
 

Isaiah

Here today, gone tomorrow
is a Site Content Manageris an official Team Rateris a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UM/OM Leader
I don't ever play in this tour but I'm sure everyone involved is invested in making sure the event is as fun (and competitive) as possible without it being overbearing :]

I think there's validity to shortening the qualifying phase. While people will always show up to grind out points if they really feel motivated to play, we also don't want to just have "best leaderboarders" while dragging out the "tournament" part. I'm not the biggest fan of 1 week cycle + top 8 because I've seen what kinds of terrible things ppl will do to grind massive points in the short term :psycry: and would rather nobody feels pressured to play for 2882828282818 hours a week just to qual. So, keeping two 2 week qualifying cycles but extending guaranteed pool to top 16 sounds about right.

Adding or completely removing any tiers (i.e. PU) will be somewhat of a hard sell to discuss in theory, so after everyone has chipped in their suggestions there should probably be some kind of vote (at least amongst those who intend on playing/managing) before a final decision is made; that way objective numbers on interest are available to guide the conclusion.

Last thing I wanted to comment on is this
1) Expanding the roster to at least allow top 15-20 annuals to have a fairer shot at being selected instead of being pushed out during qual cycles

2) Change the qual system to allow previous grinders a better shot (having ~200-300 points prior to BLT qual cycle 1 seems like a fair cutoff since all of top 10 + next few spots are hovering around that mark at the moment)
It's going to be hard to justify giving anyone who didn't play on the "BLT quals" cycles and advantage of any kind. Regular cycles have random tours like Nintendo Cup 1997 and loads of OMs because well, it's just meant to be whatever's fun. During BLT cycles, we specifically configure Monita to set BLT tiers almost exclusively. What I'm getting at here is as deserved as someone's top spot on the annual rankings might be, it'll be hard to prove that points they got through regular leaderboard participation are comparable to someone who had to play almost exclusively the tiers that will actually be in the tournament (especially from a manager's perspective of looking for players from the guaranteed pool to draft)
 

BlackKnight_Gawain

PUPL Champion
Last thing I wanted to comment on is this

It's going to be hard to justify giving anyone who didn't play on the "BLT quals" cycles and advantage of any kind. Regular cycles have random tours like Nintendo Cup 1997 and loads of OMs because well, it's just meant to be whatever's fun. During BLT cycles, we specifically configure Monita to set BLT tiers almost exclusively. What I'm getting at here is as deserved as someone's top spot on the annual rankings might be, it'll be hard to prove that points they got through regular leaderboard participation are comparable to someone who had to play almost exclusively the tiers that will actually be in the tournament (especially from a manager's perspective of looking for players from the guaranteed pool to draft)
It's a bit more time involved, but you can filter some of the dud points (ncup....) by sorting through the top annual for the formats proposed. A lot of the same names will continue to pop up at present, so I think this still hosts some merit for consideration while also easing the burden of trying out a potentially shorter qual cycle as per Poat's suggestion.

Honestly, this also lines up a fair bit with another suggestion I'd like to make given Baloor's proposal to nuke PU for a 3rd OU slot. OMs are taking off in the room, mainly AAA —we're a de facto AAA chat some days— and I actually wouldn't mind seeing a slot nuked for it, as well as Nat Dex because I think there's more merit to that as well over a 3rd OU slot, while scratching the same itches without diving into SS OU, which I know is going to be semi-unpopular (rather a 3rd SV slot there if we're really forced to). Mono is another one I wouldn't mind lending some support to, given that we have a fair few Mono Wcop players who are active in the room and some BLT regs I'm unfamiliar with who are also in that sphere, but I personally think it'd be more interesting to give the slot to AAA/Nat Dex over it.
 

TheFranklin

is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
RUPL Champion
hi, what about to suggest might seem insane to some tournament room regulars considering how disliked the current gen ou is no matter what but hear me out.

I think 3 SV OU slots will benefit this tour a lot. At this current moment, SV OU is white hot and has gained a lot of popularity with the casual community, with the ou room, ladder, and forums being the most active they have been in a long time. With this development, I think for the growth of the room and to keep casual interest in the tour it would be a real missed opportunity to not give OU more spotlight this time around. With all the players that come in from outside communities, 2 OU slots are pretty tight in terms of who is being drafted / who can play so making the tier more accessible is a good idea. There is also a lot of people from lower tiers who picked up SV OU recently and are doing quite well who are staples in this tournament (TheFranklin / Kythr for example) so adding another OU slot and giving more flexibility actually benefits the lower tier pools as well. People are only going to be more invested in the tour with home coming out, so I think for at least this year that we should seriously consider this.

This would mean either needing to drop a tier or adding an additional one. Personally, I feel nixing PU this year is the most logical call as it will be the most underdeveloped tier by a landslide by the time home comes around with how Alpha phases and tier shifts work. This will upset PU players but it's hard to argue that the tier will likely be very messy and generally barren for the most part until home shifts which won't happen till the later parts of this tour if the timeline is what we expect it to be. Adding another slot for one of the formats that have been around just as long as SV OU is an option to hit 12 slots. These tiers being; Ubers, LC, DOU and Mono. Ubers has a notably smaller community than the latter two and is particularly uninteresting atm so its prob fine to not consider it. LC is in sort of the same boat as Ubers where the community is small and the tier being pretty messy. LC players are far more diehard for the tier than Ubers players are but I feel LC is too niche to reasonably give it a 2nd slot? If there's interest I'm fine with it but just thinking from a general standpoint I don't think it would make sense. DOU is particularly niche compared to the rest of the slots but has a large community so can sustain the second slot. I think if taking this approach though the best option is mono. The tier is incredibly popular in the room and has a large community so it most definitely can sustain the second slot, lots of people are playing Mono in general right now thanks to tours like Monotype World Cup and influence from youtubers. Mono is pretty matchup based though so I don't know how I feel about it, but there are players who are consistently amazing in the tier such as Trichtonomy and mushamu who prove that type matchup isn't necessarily everything regularly. Another option is to include a metagame like CAP and NatDex which are notably smaller communities but have been around SV since month one, there is interest in these tiers and where their good players will come from the outside to play them given the tournament prize. I think adding Randbats is a bad idea as Randbats is way too niche and, well, random to take seriously in a competitive tournament. Some might draw a comparison to Mono as a counterpoint here but there are more options in builder and game to nullify sine of the random elements in Mono when Randbats is constantly the wild west. Also having Randbats in a tiebreak situation fucking sucks and should be enough to nix this suggestion all together. Finally adding a SS OU slot also puts you at 12 slots, personally, I think this is a fine option but not sure how interesting people would be in this given that there is out a lot of burnout with SS currently. Though, SPL has proven this tier gets far more shit than deserved with incredible games every week.

Alternatively, a bo3 slot including SV OU, SV UU, SV RU that cannot be selected in a tiebreak scenario, is an option that showcases all these SV tiers even more and think is more possible than ever in BLT due to how popular SV is in general at the moment. Though prepping 4 SV OU teams might be insanely overkill in a more casual setting like BLT. Maybe you can do the 2 Regular SV OU slots, a bo3 slot then add another one of the options i suggested? just spitballing ideas.

I think 3 SV OU slots in some form, whether that is through 2 regular slots and a bo3 or straight up 3 slots, should seriously be considered. There are far too many pros for this tournament to not include a third slot in some capacity. 2 SV OU slots is simply too little for how popular the tier is right now. With OU being smogons flagship format, it deserves another slot in some form.

Also please reduce the qualification phase. 4 cycles, 2 weeks each is insanely obnoxious and people lose interest before the tour even starts due to how long it takes.

edit: also SV OU council is super active in balancing the tier compared to other tiers so it will likely be in a playable state within a few weeks of home coming out. this isnt a knock on lower tier councils but mostly just acknowledging how active the ou council is at the moment which is mostly due to the popularity of the tier. which only makes me more confident that 3 sv ou slots is the way to go this time around given the mess that will be the home drop.
I kinda understand were you are coming from with adding a 3rd OU slot, but in my opinion this should never be at the expence of PU. Firstly it is just very random to leave out just 1 of the official tiers. By the time the tour starts PU should have had time to develop as well. And with respect to home, uu, ru and nu (even ou and all other day 1 tiers tbh) are gonna be volatile tiers as well, so I dont see this as a reason to exclude pu but keeping the others. I also think it is unfair to the pu mainers to leave it out. One last pre for PU is that every "new" tier gains a lot of players and attention. I can say from experience that the player count for RU dropped a lot once NU alpha came out. Since PU will be a newer tier once blt starts I think the amount of players playing it will be higher than normal, and hence should not be excluded.

So if we want a 3rd ou slot we should move to 12 slots imo. I don't really like the suggestions for the 12th slot so far. Another gen makes little sense, while OMs should be in tpp. My suggestions for a 12th slot would be one of the following (in random order): 4th OU, VGC, randbats, natdex.

Tldr: dont exclude pu, add a 12th slot if we want at least 3 ou slots
 
Adding an om is a no from me as well blt has traditionally always been an official tier event as that's the original base of the room. However that said I'm in favor of dropping pu for another ou for the same reasons already stated by Baloor and the others, its a shame but between it not being in a great spot due to being new plus incoming home it'll be messy.
 
Adding an om is a no from me as well blt has traditionally always been an official tier event as that's the original base of the room. However that said I'm in favor of dropping pu for another ou for the same reasons already stated by Baloor and the others, its a shame but between it not being in a great spot due to being new plus incoming home it'll be messy.
To add to this we have a precedent already we had dropped pu a few years ago for this very reason when SS came out that was why we added a 2nd ou slot to begin with but that was well received so we kept it.
 

Frixel

Double down
is a Social Media Contributor
1. The format of the tournament - Typical format is 2x OU, 1x Ubers, UU, RU, NU, PU, LC, DOU, Monotype. SV PU should be an Actual Format by the end of Cycle One of qualifiers.
I think 3 SV OU slots will benefit this tour a lot
So if we want a 3rd ou slot we should move to 12 slots imo. I don't really like the suggestions for the 12th slot so far. Another gen makes little sense, while OMs should be in tpp. My suggestions for a 12th slot would be one of the following (in random order): 4th OU, VGC, randbats, natdex.
I like the idea of adding a 3rd OU slot, but I don't think at the time is feasible. For this to happen there are 2 options imo:
  1. Keep it at 10 tiers and nuke one of the other tiers, which, as arce9 said, makes no sense because BLT was and is about all official tiers.
  2. Make it 12 tiers, where we would need to add an additional slot, and this is where problems begin. Baloor suggested one of the "Adding another slot for one of the formats that have been around just as long as SV OU", but I'm not a fan of this. Neither LC, Ubers or DOU have a big enough player base to warrant 2 slots in this tournament, and although mono probably does, it feels weird to have 3x OU, 2x Mono and 1x everything else. arce9 suggested a "4th OU, VGC, randbats, natdex"; however, this would take us back to the "BLT was and is about all official tiers" reasoning of why we shouldn't nuke PU. Out of this, the 4th OU is the most appealing one, but that is probably too much OU. BKG also suggest the addition of an OM, but as already said, that is both against what BLT is and a place for TP. Additionally, we also have to consider that this would imply a 12 player + subs roster, which will impact the qualifying cycles
2. HOME - How do we want to handle HOME if it drops during the tour itself (timelined for "Spring 2023")?
Incorporate home when it drops

3. Points for qualifying - BLT IX's point cutoff was 30 points. Is this a good number? Does this need to be adjusted at all?
Points are fine. Nontheless, the community has mentioned that a shorter qualifying cycle would be better. Imo, this comes from: 1) Grinding the leaderboard for 2 weeks to secure top 8 is exhausting; 2) whoever qualifies cycle 1 has to wait a very long time.
People have suggested four 1 week cycles, but in case this is changed, I would rather see two 2 weeks cycles. Additionally, if we actualy go for a 12 man + subs roster, would shortening the qual cycles warrant a large enough player base to support this?
 

Theia

Say hello to the robots
is a Tournament Directoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnus
User Safety Lead
We've been discussing a lot of the points internally, and here's roughly our thoughts on stuff:
  • Shorter qualification period: Heavy support for this, would likely become two cycles of top sixteen over four cycles of top eight
    • Trouble with this arises with the timing of the tour. HOME is likely to be announced next week so we'd probably make the decision based on that
      • If HOME is announced for sometime in March or early April, we'd likely push qualifications back to the second cycle of April and the first cycle of May. Manager signups would be posted around the first week of April.
  • Third OU slot: Mixed support for this and here's why
    • OU is the flagship metagame and the most popular. That alone would probably justify giving it a third slot, especially since it's a new gen, however in order to have a third OU slot, we'll either have to add an extra slot to make 12 or cut an existing slot
      • Cutting no metas is my personal preference, PU will be a mess but so will NU and RU, especially since HOME will inevitably drop in a way that impacts this tour and it feels wack to cut PU with that in mind
      • Adding 12 slots is fine but the questions of 1) what should we make slot 12 (would lean VGC) and 2) would we have enough players?
        • Last year we had tons of players due to the hype and larger stakes prizes for the tours. In prior years, we barely had enough players to fill out the ten slot roster

Thanks so much to everyone who has been offering their thought so far, we appreciate it and are trying our best to take everyone's thoughts into account. This is by no means a closing post and please do keep talking about this topic. I'll likely bring another update if HOME is announced next week.
 

Baloor

Tigers Management
is a Community Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
PUPL Champion
In my opinion, adding an OM is not a good idea. BLT has always been more official tier tour and while I did suggest CAP and ND as possible inclusions those play way more in line with main smogon metagames then things like AAA. OMs in a tour like BLT is simply a bad idea as it differs from the purpose of the tour (a stepping stone into more mainstream tours) and would lead to an absolute mess in tiebreaks. Lets keep these to TPP please.

I did not think about VGC but I would support the inclusion of it as it has been discussed to actually be included in official tours for a while now. Only issue would be the interest within the community? While a big community, they are pretty disconnected from the rest of smogon. There's some overlap with doubles but most VGC players use the site as means of getting more VGC games for IRL Tournaments (the exception being VGCPL, which seems pretty popular within that community) rather than being invested in smogon. While the community can def sustain a slot, I'm unsure of the number of viable players that would actually sign up. If there's anybody more involved with smogons VGC please correct any of my claims if they are wrong.

SV OU x4 seems fine to an OU tryhard like me, but realistically this might be too much for people less invested in the tier than i am If people want it, I am not opposed to it at all but I understand this might be too much ou. SV OU x3 + SS OU is an option I already suggested but just want to mention it again. This seems like the safest overall option to add other than VGC (if there is interest there) if people are super opposed to any of my other more experimental suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Personally I love the idea of a VGC slot. It’s a solidified meta due to it being the official metagame of TPCI so HOME and smogon tiering processes wouldn’t be an issue. It has a strong player base and community so getting players shouldn’t be an issue. It also could help introduce new players who purely play VGC to smogon formats for the first time.
 
There are a few issues with 12 slots. Of the many suggestions for the 12th slot I personally think a Bo3 slot seems like the best option, followed by a VGC slot if there's enough support. The bigger issue with 12 slots imo is if we do go ahead with a smaller qualifying period, there's a very high chance we wouldn't get enough viable signups to fill out the bigger teams and their subs. This early into the gen I don't think builder fatigue will be as much of an issue, especially since the metas will be fresh after home.

Regarding how I think the Bo3 slot should be implemented, I think OU + a meta of each player's choice. I think would make the slot more accessible to players and would be interesting to see them playing in new metas they might not be as comfortable playing as their main tiers.
 

RoyalReloaded

!
is a Top Tiering Contributor
MPL Champion
I think adding a vgc slot is a good idea on paper but most vgc players I know are pretty die hard and would absolutely not spend their time playing predominately singles room tournaments just so they can play in a vgc tournament as opposed to going on play.limitless and signing up for a vgc tournament with two clicks.

I do support a third OU slot and altering the qualifiers. I also support keeping PU in, especially now that the alpha tiering discussion has reached a final decision. If PU ends up getting removed, fine, but replace it with something like random battles or national dex, something that people will actually want to qualify for.
 
I'd only consider vgc if we expand to 12 imo dropping a main official for it doesn't feel right given the history of the tour. I think with pu going straight to beta and speeding along the process I think it's fine to keep it.

Now on the topic of expanding I'm very against it, its been mentioned in discord already but given how we barely had enough for 10 slots in a normal year without the draw of a cash prize it's just not worth the risk.
 
Last edited:

Dj Breloominati♬

born to play, forced to john
is a Top Tiering Contributor
UPL Champion
Am in favour of 10 slots with OU x 3 > PU for two reasons.
Not going to repeat the same points, but as echoed in this thread, OU is in a great space popularity/competitiveness wise right now, and I dont see that changing.
Personally, Im not very comfortable adding a tier which will (potentially) stabilize so close to the start of the tournament. There is a very real possibility that this slot will be a crapshoot for both the players and the spectators, and I'd rather go ahead with something thats a safer bet :heart:

Also not sold on the idea of adding more slots given we're already unsure of tiers. VGC sounds nice, but yes I dont think their players go through the tedious process of grinding singles tours just to qualify :pirate:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top