We should permanently fix the “tiers played” signup issue to prevent pricefixing from coming into play during auctions as well as reduce pricefixing incentive by tierlocking retains.
The two teams in SPL finals, regardless of intention, took huge advantage of pricefixed players. Sharks had 7.5k suapah who signed up for RBY and played SS after mids, including winning a crucial tiebreak in semis. Raiders had 8.5k 100p who signed up for DPP, was benched until mids, and clutched for his team in semis and finals (and was slotted in tiebreak as well). In addition, Raiders had 3k Hclat at midseason, who was significantly cheaper than he would have been otherwise and allowed them to fix their ADV slot issue seamlessly. I am not trying at all to put down the Sharks and Raiders for their draft. In fact, I think both teams did a great job in auction and taking advantage of loopholes in the rules should occur if they exist.
My proposal is twofold:
1. Implement z0mOG's “Tiers NOT Played” proposal and make this condition last an entire SPL season (https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tiers-not-played.3658018/).
2. Tierlock retains for four weeks for SPL 14 based on their SPL 13 signup, and then tierlock them according to “Tiers NOT Played” for future editions of the tournament.
Tiers not played is different than tiers played because it is easier to say what you won’t play than what you will. It allows you to have more flexibility in switching tiers during a season while preventing someone from pricefixing by saying they won’t play their best tier.
I think retains are dumb and should be nuked in full, but that is not something I think is practical to remove nor would most people be on board with. However, I think the idea of having a player pricefix one year and then be retained for a different tier sets a bad precedent and rewards players to “play for next year” by having their price lowered for several years to come. As seen from this SPL, pricefixing is effective and the drawbacks aren’t necessarily high. 100p shouldn’t be able to be retained to play a full season of SS for 11.5k after signing up for DPP only the previous year, and suapah shouldn’t be retained for 10.5k to play a full season of SS either. Roro and I had a 13k Felix retain this year, which despite our result gave us a huge advantage, and shouldn’t be used as a counterpoint to this proposal because Felix didn’t pricefix the year before and signed up for + played SS from week 1.
Thanks for reading.
The two teams in SPL finals, regardless of intention, took huge advantage of pricefixed players. Sharks had 7.5k suapah who signed up for RBY and played SS after mids, including winning a crucial tiebreak in semis. Raiders had 8.5k 100p who signed up for DPP, was benched until mids, and clutched for his team in semis and finals (and was slotted in tiebreak as well). In addition, Raiders had 3k Hclat at midseason, who was significantly cheaper than he would have been otherwise and allowed them to fix their ADV slot issue seamlessly. I am not trying at all to put down the Sharks and Raiders for their draft. In fact, I think both teams did a great job in auction and taking advantage of loopholes in the rules should occur if they exist.
My proposal is twofold:
1. Implement z0mOG's “Tiers NOT Played” proposal and make this condition last an entire SPL season (https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tiers-not-played.3658018/).
2. Tierlock retains for four weeks for SPL 14 based on their SPL 13 signup, and then tierlock them according to “Tiers NOT Played” for future editions of the tournament.
Tiers not played is different than tiers played because it is easier to say what you won’t play than what you will. It allows you to have more flexibility in switching tiers during a season while preventing someone from pricefixing by saying they won’t play their best tier.
Dr. Rey — 03/20/2022
its not the same becuase
for example
100 said DPP
so now he can only play DPP
so he pricefixes himself
but if he says
"i wont play all the other tiers but dpp"
now hes stuck
in dpp
the difference lies in that
you can tierlock that
all season
bcuz its easier to post what you wont play
than what youll play
its not the same becuase
for example
100 said DPP
so now he can only play DPP
so he pricefixes himself
but if he says
"i wont play all the other tiers but dpp"
now hes stuck
in dpp
the difference lies in that
you can tierlock that
all season
bcuz its easier to post what you wont play
than what youll play
I think retains are dumb and should be nuked in full, but that is not something I think is practical to remove nor would most people be on board with. However, I think the idea of having a player pricefix one year and then be retained for a different tier sets a bad precedent and rewards players to “play for next year” by having their price lowered for several years to come. As seen from this SPL, pricefixing is effective and the drawbacks aren’t necessarily high. 100p shouldn’t be able to be retained to play a full season of SS for 11.5k after signing up for DPP only the previous year, and suapah shouldn’t be retained for 10.5k to play a full season of SS either. Roro and I had a 13k Felix retain this year, which despite our result gave us a huge advantage, and shouldn’t be used as a counterpoint to this proposal because Felix didn’t pricefix the year before and signed up for + played SS from week 1.
Thanks for reading.