Team MPL VIII Format Discussion Thread

[maroon]

Hey everyone, it's that time of the year again! With MPL coming up we're re-opening the discussion about the tournament's format. Last year's format consisted of:

previous format

SS:
SS:
SS:
SM:
SM:
ORAS:
BW:
BO3:

This year, we would like to bring up two things for consideration. The first being whether the tour will be 6 or 8 slots, then what the slots will be. We will only consider the slot choices below, please do not suggest anything else. We will entertain the idea of an SS bo3 on formats that have a bo3 already and where SS is less than half of the slots.

8 slots formats

SS:
SS:
SS:
SM:
SM:
ORAS:
BW:
SS / SM / ORAS bo3:

OR

SS:
SS:
SS:
SS:
SM:
SM:
ORAS:
BW:

6 slots formats

SS:
SS:
SM:
ORAS:
BW:
SS / SM / ORAS bo3:

OR

SS:
SS:
SS:
SM:
ORAS:
BW:

Other Discussion Topics:
- How many retains should be allowed in a six-slot format or limited to one? How many retains do you think there should be in an eight-slot format, two maximum?
- Should all managers be the same price or should we base it on previous performances in Monotype Team Tournaments?
- Should both managers be able to buy themselves in a six-slot format?

If you feel strongly about a certain format, now is the time to say so as well as why you feel this way. That means giving a proper explanation why you believe there should be 6 or 8 slots and which format you prefer. Shitposting will not be tolerated and will be punished via infraction, please use this thread to only make serious posts. This thread will be the only place to air concerns about MPL, once the final decision has been made by the mod team here, the format will not change.

This thread will stay open until May 1st @ 10PM EDT. Manager signups will open after this thread closes.

 

[Chaitanya]

Hi I'm back. Don't have as much to say considering I've already said most of it so here's all that again. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/mpl-vii-format-discussion-thread.3685216/#post-8875166

Anyway I still think 6 slots is the way to go, even more so now. I don't think 6 slots got a fair shake either way with natdex, threat, and old gen bo3 in the tour. If I knew OMs were staying 100% like Kev told me today I wouldn't have even argued for 6 in mwp but whatever that's over. Obviously these other slots don't cater to the complete mpl population so it's not a fair assessment of 6 slots. Having our best tiers in our best tour should be where 6 slots is properly judged. Anyway, I think most(basically everyone) agree that MWP wasn't very good... I don't understand any rationale to make MPL (better tour) actively worse by going back to 8 slots. Not like BLT has had a breakout of young starts or anything so yeah give 6 slots a real shot.

For obvious reasons, if we do move down to 6 slots, there can't be retains this year. I hate the concept of retains in general but I don't think we'd get rid of them for identity purposes, so for this year I'd definitely let both managers play. Next year I think it should be a max of 2 players per team before the auction. So either 1 retain + 1 manager or both managers or whatever. But for this year I think both managers should be able to play. If we're at a point where we wanna bin retains completely I think only 1 manager playing makes more sense.
I think managers should be equally priced no matter how many slots and these prices should be pretty high. Mainly because 1) 'to avoid broken teams' and 2) If you signup for manager, playing should be your second priority. If you think the price is too high then don't play. But yeah for 6 slots, 100k purse. I'd want 20k minimum per manager. (I think ideal number is 22.5) Assuming 8 people minimum per team, the average player would be 12.5k. If you put 10k or so aside for 2 subs, your average starter is gonna cost around 15k. Managers are generally leading figures in the community so the bump on 15k to 20-22.5-25 is reasonable enough imo. 45k for the 2 managers means you have 55k for 6 players. Pretty reasonable I think. If 8 slots 3 players max before auction.

I think bo3 is better suited to 6 slots than 8. Only cause it's harder to fodder with 6 slots. Regardless bo3 is kinda whatever and it can go or stay idrc. For the love of everything holy tho it shouldn't be part of 8 slots.
However if it is included I think it absolutely needs to have bw in it as well. Oras having representation in gens over bw AND getting the extra slot in mpl would be really shitty from a representation pov and sucks for the growth of the tier. My proposal is that all 4 of SS SM ORAS and BW are available to be picked. Bo3 players should be able to decide which tier they want to exclude. If they can't decide then the bo3 should start with SS and then loser picks the tier until it's over. Could also have to provide which tiers are being played to hosts if players do decide early to prevent any sort of bullshit.

Boring argument?: This has come up before which I don't get at all but for me with 8 slots, I think having to prep more slots is boring, and having more dead teammates is boring, and seeing more shitty games is boring and shoots down team morale. So does it go both ways? It's 1/2 players less in a chat, if u cut out on some dead wood subs that never talk, I'd argue it's even better. It's entirely subjective and I don't think it should have any say in whatever is decided.

Ideal format: Make MPL 6 slots, 8 players minimum, 11 maximum. MWP should be 8 slots imo regardless of oms or not but yeah diff conversation. Back to the topic at hand - either of the formats maroon has listed with bw in bo3, 100k purse with each manager being worth either 20 or 22.5 or somewhere around there. 25 is prob too much. Both managers able to play this year. If 6 slots continues then 1 retain next year w 2 players max per team prior to auction.

 

[maroon]

these are my personal opinions and not a reflection of the mod team. i think we should give the six slot format a chance in mpl. while the tour has always been an eight-slot format. many people have argued that reducing the number of slots could increase the quality of games in the tournament, which is worth a shot. if it doesn't work out as well as we hoped, we can return to a full 8 next year. both managers should be able to play this year, but no team has retains. the reason i don't want retains in the first year of a six slot format is because we cant proportionally set prices for retains with a much smaller overall budget. if we keep the six slot format again next mpl, we should limit managers/retains to be a maximum of 2 players total. the reason i want two players max before the draft is so that teams couldn't pick up half their starting lineup before the draft. the 100k budget for mwp seemed to work, so i think we should keep that for this mpl. managers should also be a set price, chaitanya's pricing and explanation for 22.5k per manager works for me, since then you have slightly under 60k to spend on the remaining 6 minimum players (including subs). not set on manager pricings. i think bo3 should remain in the six slot format. its always fun to watch and his been a core part of mpl as far as i can remember. if we were to include bw in the bo3 each series should start with ss, then the loser can choose from the remaining gens (5-7). i dont care to set a max # of players a team can buy, but i think 10 is reasonable if one were to be set. since that means you have 4 subs max, double the minimum. i want to state again, i do not want to make this format permanent. if we attempt a six slot format, we should discuss whether we should revert the tour to an eight slot format at the end of the tournament. the reason i want to discuss it after mpl is so that it is fresh in everyone's mind as opposed to almost a year later.

 

[Sabella]

Regardless of format I think we should re think manager buys for this year. If we are to still have manager buys I believe that the manager prices should be something along the lines of 10k/15k/20k/25k/30k. I'm not sure how to determine price for a manager just yet but I think the best way would probably be to base it off of previous tours both team and individual along with possibly having a few people adjust prices if they seem too disparaging. If anyone has any better ideas or ways to improve this let me know. I don't really believe in flat manager prices they are to easy to abuse for the more talented players who want to manage and its not fair for the managers who might want to play but aren't atop the player pool.

 

[sasha]

noob in the scene so take what i say with a grain of salt ig only commenting since i managed last tour.

echoing what sabella said. getting under 20k (17.5k was manager buy iirc) mushamu in mwp was absolutely criminal but getting myself for that much felt like shit when i am not good lol just wanted to play for fun. i guess playing for fun lolz xd isnt really acceptable for some people if its a tour like mpl but at the end of the day this is a hobby and we play for fun. the only issue that can arise out of this i feel like is the discussion of how much x manager should cost but i really dont think it should be that hard to figure out. if for ex i manage with lets say mushamu again and hes a 25k manager and im also a 25k manager that just doesnt really make sense. but i guess its different now in a 6 slot format its a lot harder to justify buying a third of your draft before it even starts, i guess people didnt really care that both managers self bought in mwp because its mwp? im not really sure there. as far as slot amount goes i can already imagine its going to be 6 with no one intensively arguing against it in the mono cord or here but its also something forum mods should have decided before the tour because it will always be a back and forth if people do eventually decide to comment on it. i will still argue that i think (subjectively) that 6 slots is worse than 8 slots but the only worthwhile argument ive seen is piper and chait talking about mono not being able to field as many top players in mpl which i think is the biggest reason this tour should be 6 slots. opposed to like other reasons of whatever chait and co wants to deem as competitive. all the games in 6 slots can be dogshit the same amount of 8 slots because at the end of the day we play an rng game and a game where people can choke and throw and anyone can do it so i feel like arguments of competitiveness aren't as strong as fielding as many strong players. sure a lineup of a bunch of top pool players are obviously going to not throw more consistently than a pool of bad players but i feel that the concept is still there. i guess foddering slots is easier in 8 slot tours but we didnt do it in mwp so i wont really comment there i feel like if you want to win a team tour lol dont fodder your fucking slots play for everyone to win regardless of the slot amount? that is the only point i will absolutely shut down.

 

[Chaitanya]

Foddering exists cause it's viable. And it's viable for a reason lol. Also 6 slots tour games will never be 'dogshit the same amount as 8 slots.' Theoretically impossible. Whether you draft the best available players is a different question but when you have less 'worse' players playing, you will have less 'worse' games. There's no way to get around that.

Wrt what sab said, subjective pricing has been real bad in the past, we've used managers to rank players + price them before and it hasn't gone well. I'm personally not a fan of using records from the last two years to figure out prices either but that wilson score stuff is a slightly better measurement. Individuals should 100% not be taken into consideration. If wilson score or some other measurement is used, I think that the scale should be 15 absolute absolute minimum/17.5/20/22.5/25 max out of a 100k purse.
My biggest issue with sabella's scale is there is absolutely no way to justify a manager is worthy of being a manager and be worth less than/equal to the average player so I would definitely say 17.5 - 25. Still wouldn't be keen on different prices but that's the best option if it ends up being the case imo.

I think for pretty clear reasons a lot of people won't like this idea (harder to plan, a bit more work (although solved by naming assman later), less fun and people might not even want to run solo) but I do wanna put it out there cause there are a lot of potential benefits. What do people think about only 1 manager per team? No assistant manager before the auction. After the auction you can choose an assistant manager to cover for you when you're not around for stuff like sending in lineups and whatever. Obviously depends on how much interest there is from people to solo manage (and co manage) but it could potentially solve a few big issues.
1) Manager pricing doesn't become an issue, and a high even price to buy yourself is very valid. If people still hate a single price for everyone which there's not much reason to with 1 manager, at least it's much easier to subjectively rank 8 people instead of 16 and it's less damaging if prices end up 'wrong.' 2) You can't form 'superteams' before the auction itself. 3) You don't have potentially have 33% of your starting lineup decided before auction, making auction more hype and more fair etc. 4) More good players go into pool. 5) Maybe the most important... less people needed to manage and from what I've heard manager spots looking dire. Ofc some people would manage with a friend and wouldn't alone but with a lack of obvious managers signing up, I thought it could be interesting to throw out there.

 

[Ticken]

I have always believed that manager prices shouldn't be the same for everyone because it would give some teams an advantage from the very beginning otherwise. Of course, managers with less battling skill can opt out of playing and use their funds on someone else during the draft, but high caliber players would still be costly to secure them.

This has been the norm, but figuring out how to price managers fairly and objectively has been difficult. The difficulty lies in the only objective measure being wins and losses, but this can easily be taken advantage of, even with no intentions to, because great players can still have an off-season and there are many other factors that come into play and that are not accounted for by a record alone. Chait mentioned "Wilson Score" which we have been using for recent tournaments, but my issue with that is people who have more games generally have a higher score than those who have played less. Meaning, someone may be boosted into a higher bracket over someone else because they played another game or two regardless of a win or loss. Obviously though, a win would boost you more than a loss. With that said, this should help with off-season results since better players will generally play most, if not every, week but it is something to keep in mind. This system still had its issues last year where managers who hadn't played for a while were automatically put in the middle tier, but it's been the best option for now.

I honestly second Chait where he mentions each team having one manager to start off with, but only if it is 6 slots. It should be manageable for a solo manager to create a draft plan for a slightly reduced slot count, but anymore and the manager should really have a locked-in helper. One manager per team would also make the manager price issue less influential considering it will affect half the number of people and you can no longer stack two high caliber players together for a sizable discount. I am often cautious about making too many changes to the format at once, but 6 slots + solo manager seem to go hand-in-hand imo.

I am not completely sure how manager prices should be handled, and it is frankly too early to decide. Both a fixed- and variable-price make since if there is only one manager, but I still personally have a preference for variable prices. Outright not allowing manager buys is an option as well, but it wouldn't be my first choice. Also, I second Exca where he mentions no retains. MPL teams do not have a legacy attached as team names change from year-to-year with a couple exceptions, so they are not necessary.

 

[plunder]

I'm gonna be trying to manage in MPL so I wanted to mainly give my opinions on the ‘one manager per team’ point which was mentioned in the posts above (Gonna try keeping it as concise as I possibly can).

As someone who has played in 6 slots with one manager before, I’m not a fan of limiting it to one manager per team. I think the experience is underwhelming compared to having two managers. Generally, it’s harder for one manager to keep the team chat active by themselves as well as make sure all the slots are being supported enough. Sure in the first couple of weeks it’s fine but as the weeks progress it’s definitely a lot for any manager. Also, we’ve had a case last tour where we had a manager just go inactive. We had two managers last time so it was a bit easier to reduce the impact of that, but having one manager makes that a bigger problem and frankly I just don’t think it's a risk worth taking in MPL.

 

[Jahkem]

The major team tournaments of Monotype is the tier’s grand stage to showcase the peak of our tier from our best performing players. Through major outplays, superior preparation, and better cohesion amongst teammates, we get to witness some of the best gameplay that Monotype has to offer over several months. However, as of late, there has been a dip in game quality and it’s been a debate within the community on how to tackle this problem.

I briefly spoke with Bondie about game quality in the Montype discord server. I was mainly asking questions on how the Mono staff plans on tackling the game quality issue in other ways other than reducing slots. The discussion ended with Bondie asking me, “Well, what would you do to improve game quality?” And I didn’t have an answer at the time which led me to think. I wanted to take a different look at our structure for these team tournaments.

But before that, I’ll quickly speak on the 8 slot vs 6 slot debate. The main reason 6 slots has been suggested was to reduce the amount of bad quality games. While reducing the overall amount of games does, technically, reduce the amount of bad quality games, I believe that this does not really do much to maximize game quality as much as being a blanket check to the glaring issue. If say, 50% of the games are low quality, then reducing the amount of slots 8>>6 will approximately have the same ratio with little to no variance. Go with either amount of slots, the good to bad ratio of game quality will be just about the same. However, in terms of having less potential dead weight and less games to play overall, then be my guest and run 6 slots.

Moving on, there’s really not a changing variety of players within our tier. We generally have the same players and managers signing up and being drafted for these tournaments. So this leads to existing managers typically trying to draft: established good players, potentially good players, and/or friends. This isn’t an exhaustive list but within the general consensus of everyone’s draft plan. What I want you all to look at is the fact that these are generally the same pool of players and managers for these tournaments. These are the same players playing for the same usual teams and getting generally the same records every tournament. The only difference is that the quality of games have been on a steady decline which leads to a negative spectator’s point of view.

This leads me to share what I believe the main focus should be: the managers. There are some managers whose team(s) will consistently do bad in these tournaments. I believe there should be some form of relegation of managers who consistently do poorly for these team tournaments. An example (and I absolutely mean no harm, shade, or shame on this player. This is just purely to plead my case.), I may be off on the specifics, but there was a time period that Izaya managed for 3 team tournaments in a row and his team fell into last place 3 times in a row (again, specifics elude me, maybe one team tour didn’t count but 2 within the same time frame for sure). Why is he allowed to continue to manage a team instead of sitting one out after those performances? At some point, it goes beyond just bad luck and matchups. There had to be some lacking in his draft plan, team prep, or something. Granted, the team tournament following that slump, his team made playoffs. Again, I only use Izaya as an example. I’ve heard from many that Izaya is every bit what you want in a manager. Someone who is heavily involved with his teams’ discussions, prepping, and test games.

Anyway, going back to my suggestion of relegation of team managers. Let there be some punishment for teams performing poorly for 2 or 3 tournaments in a row. This way, there could be new managers who could gain chance to perform well against the other well established team managers. As well as keep the top tier teams on their toes to not fall to the bottom. This could reinvigorate all the teams, bring the competitiveness to a new level, and improve the quality of games.

I genuinely want to read other’s thoughts on this.

 

[juleocesar]

I agree with the idea that the main focus of the thread should be applied to manager logistics, so i'll be leaving my own thoughts on the matter. Personally to me, there needs to be a strong justification if a manager decides to be a player for two reasons:

1- A manager who is in a player position has incredible advantage over the draft, meaning they are able to choose scenarios where they are guaranteed pick and choose whoever they play with (regardless of how good the manager actually is);

2 - It is not the main role of a manager to be a player (this is arguable but lets us rethink the proposal of applying for a manager in the first place).

Therefore, the argument presented by Chaitanya on having super high prices for everyone makes a lot of sense to me and IMO it should be the way it goes. I don't like the idea of nitpicking on "how good the manager is" as a player because that's mostly subjective to everyone and depends on the contact this player has kept with the metagame in the past months. However, that is not to say that variable prices are out of question, as long as there isn't a great degree of nitpicking on their skill level (again, they are not initially supposed to play). That being said, if we were to apply those two ideas in practice, it would end up something like this:

a) Same prices for every manager: 35k.
b) Variable prices: 40k for "good managers" and 30k for "not so good managers".

Yes, the prices are high. In past tournament editions, the teams with the good managers have always been favored over the teams whose managers aren't that great, and it is even more true when said players know how to use the draft to their advantage. The numbers can always be worked out anyway so let's not detail it over as long as they remain as a decision that should be "unviable" at first sight.

This leads me to share what I believe the main focus should be: the managers. There are some managers whose team(s) will consistently do bad in these tournaments. I believe there should be some form of relegation of managers who consistently do poorly for these team tournaments. An example (and I absolutely mean no harm, shade, or shame on this player. This is just purely to plead my case.), I may be off on the specifics, but there was a time period that Izaya managed for 3 team tournaments in a row and his team fell into last place 3 times in a row (again, specifics elude me, maybe one team tour didn’t count but 2 within the same time frame for sure). Why is he allowed to continue to manage a team instead of sitting one out after those performances? At some point, it goes beyond just bad luck and matchups. There had to be some lacking in his draft plan, team prep, or something. Granted, the team tournament following that slump, his team made playoffs. Again, I only use Izaya as an example. I’ve heard from many that Izaya is every bit what you want in a manager. Someone who is heavily involved with his teams’ discussions, prepping, and test games.

Anyway, going back to my suggestion of relegation of team managers. Let there be some punishment for teams performing poorly for 2 or 3 tournaments in a row. This way, there could be new managers who could gain chance to perform well against the other well established team managers. As well as keep the top tier teams on their toes to not fall to the bottom. This could reinvigorate all the teams, bring the competitiveness to a new level, and improve the quality of games.

I genuinely want to read other’s thoughts on this.

I 100% agree with this. I believe the issue about manager relegation is more practical than ideal, as most managers are already predetermined by a small percentage of this community. Even then, it is possible to give an opportunity for those who decide to manage and want to work out their teams over managers who have had poor consistency and mindset. Managers should always have great responsibility for the road their team takes, even when not playing (but even more so true if they do decide to play).

As for retains, my suggestion is that they should not happen. New edition, new player choices. Of course you can still base yourself in past tournament experiences to make your choices, but don't expect to have them back in your team that easily.

Finally but not least, the format. Everyone seems to be on a consensus that 6 slots is the most ideal but let's not forget that most of the playerbase in MPL are outsiders (OU / UU / Uber players, etc). While this isn't generally an issue (especially given quality of games is a must), MPL is intended to be a reference tournament that features our metagame for the sake of our community. In the end of the day we are all playing games in a Pokemon Simulator, meaning it is necessary to ensure community involvement, and more importantly, that everyone (or a large percentage of it) is having fun. Improving the percentage of quality games is a good argument indeed, but how much of it is actually improved? What's the opportunity cost of potentially increasing the quality over shortening community involvement? Not really supporting 8 slots directly but thinking about those questions help us take what's arguably the most viable decision.

Overall, I agree with maroon's point of view. 6 slots is surely worth taking a shot, and right after tournament ends, we discuss the good and the bad. I am not sure how many substitutes the competition is intended to have but regardless of it, it should work well as long as there is balance between players directly involved with Monotype and players from other tiers.

Sorry for long ass post, I am probably not the most ideal guy to talk about this but tried to address as much as i could on the matter.

 

[style.css]

Despite being someone pretty new to the team tour scene and not having managed any teams before, I feel that 1 manager is not the correct solution to the problem.

I'll use BLT as an example: as the host I've seen some disorganization from the managers that would've been easily solved by just having a second pair of hands to help out. Not only does it mean that the managers can focus prep more on fewer slots (3 and 3 for example), but it also means managerial duties can be split and the workload lightened. Having a single person for all final decisions is a point of failure and can cause delays in lineups being decided, subs being made or any other unforeseen situations that might happen while the one managers is offline. (See Vodoom v. Riku Sakuraba of W5 BLT).

Now, if we did stick with 2 managers, that brings us back to the initial problem of manager pricing. I'd like to reconsider the idea of having 2 managers but only 1 is allowed to play. This means that pricing wise it's the same as if we only had 1 manager but teams will still be able to have the 2 managers we are used to.

I think we should get feedback from the current BLT managers specifically as the most recent tour to have 1 manager and their experiences to determine if they liked being the only manager or ran into issues that could've been resolved by having a co-manager.

 

[Rinda]

Despite being someone pretty new to the team tour scene and not having managed any teams before, I feel that 1 manager is not the correct solution to the problem.

I'll use BLT as an example: as the host I've seen some disorganization from the managers that would've been easily solved by just having a second pair of hands to help out. Not only does it mean that the managers can focus prep more on fewer slots (3 and 3 for example), but it also means managerial duties can be split and the workload lightened. Having a single person for all final decisions is a point of failure and can cause delays in lineups being decided, subs being made or any other unforeseen situations that might happen while the one managers is offline. (See Vodoom v. Riku Sakuraba of W5 BLT).

Now, if we did stick with 2 managers, that brings us back to the initial problem of manager pricing. I'd like to reconsider the idea of having 2 managers but only 1 is allowed to play. This means that pricing wise it's the same as if we only had 1 manager but teams will still be able to have the 2 managers we are used to.

I think we should get feedback from the current BLT managers specifically as the most recent tour to have 1 manager and their experiences to determine if they liked being the only manager or ran into issues that could've been resolved by having a co-manager.

I don't think comparing BLT and MPL makes a lot of sense. In BLT most players are either non mono mains or new players, so if you want all your slots to bring good teams there is more work to put in prep. Of course this is clearly counterbalanced by the fact the level and the stake in BLT are lower so you don't tryhard as much, but i just wanted to say that no comparison can be made because it is not the same kind of work. Also about managerial duties, the fact BLT is a fun tour means less organization, less incentives to be granted wins (there was a redo because Attribute joked about it) etc., so the duties are also very different.

About the "2 managers but 1 playing" (i assume we talk about a 6 slots format ?), in my opinion it is the worst solution if we want both the best managers and the best players in the tour. Most of the people I would consider to be the best managers are also top players so this rule would whether disincentivize them to play or disincentivize them to manage, what in both cases is bad for the quality of the tour.

My favorite solution is 1 manager per team (allowed to play), and then they name a co after the draft if they want. With a 8 managers line up it seems ok to do same price, and then the co's price will anyway be what the manager wants to spend for him.

 

[Kev]

It's that time again.... I'll start by replying to some stuff in the thread and then I'll give my opinions.

Ideal format: Make MPL 6 slots, 8 players minimum, 11 maximum. MWP should be 8 slots imo regardless of oms or not but yeah diff conversation.

Gonna stress that regardless of what happens this MPL, I do not have any intention of making making the next MPL 6 slots. The next MPL will be during gen 9, and only 2 CG slots (since we have 4 old gens) is absolutely ridiculous, especially for a fresh and developing meta game. CG will be in peak development around that time and will need all the presentation it should get, as well as the tournament scene should have its doors more open to welcome in the next generation of mainstays. The only possible way I could see myself supporting 6 posts next MPL is if we get messed up by an even worse case of dexit/movexit that makes the tier really uninteresting. And no, making the 2 CG slots Bo3 is not sufficient.

I think bo3 is better suited to 6 slots than 8. Only cause it's harder to fodder with 6 slots. Regardless bo3 is kinda whatever and it can go or stay idrc. For the love of everything holy tho it shouldn't be part of 8 slots.

Already briefly went over the ORAS/BW thing on discord and don't think it's really worth going over unless it becomes relevant. Just gonna add that I'm on the camp of no Bo3 in 8 slots, and Bo3 SS in 6 slots. Boosts the amount of games which is always nice for the tournament, and ideally higher quality ones, as well as giving the main tier greater focus. I think the Bo3 SS we had 2 MWPs ago was a pretty cool slot from memory and would be nice to continue. It was great when it was the slot back in MPL3 for SM and should be a mainstay tradition imo.

Regardless of format I think we should re think manager buys for this year. If we are to still have manager buys I believe that the manager prices should be something along the lines of 10k/15k/20k/25k/30k. I'm not sure how to determine price for a manager just yet but I think the best way would probably be to base it off of previous tours both team

I don't really understand where this one is coming from because that's exactly how MPL does it? The price ranges are different but for the past few tours the prices have been determined based on past MPL performances. Individuals aren't included in the formula, but it's not really a fair basis since not everyone plays in them. Someone could end up being "punished" for playing in individuals through their price being increased while others would get 0 contribution from it. The MPL I hosted is where we started the tradition of attempting to "balance" manager prices so I definitely agree with the sentiment, but the issue is that it's really difficult to find a proper formula that would attribute accurate prices; any thing that comes up is usually abusable in some shape or form. I do think the Wilson score method has been rather adequate these past few years though and would not be opposed to continuing it or modifying if an alternative is proposed by anyone.

all the games in 6 slots can be dogshit the same amount of 8 slots

Foddering exists cause it's viable. And it's viable for a reason lol.

Echoing what Chait said to this. it just doesn't make sense, objectively speaking there would be less bad games and it would be less temping to fodder. Sure, bad games can happen plenty in 6 slots, such is the nature of Pokemon, etc... but conceptually it is guaranteed to weed out low quality games playing wise. Foddering an effective tactic in 8 slots and has been used plenty, your (cy) experience comes from a 6 slot tour where the risk of foddering is higher, and in theory the "access" to fodder is less. What I mean by that is in 8 slots you could realistically have 1 slot where you know not much is gonna come out of it, hence you can just fodder the one filling that one in. In 6 slots, generally teams should have a higher caliber of players and have less of a need to do so.

What do people think about only 1 manager per team?

I honestly second Chait where he mentions each team having one manager to start off with, but only if it is 6 slots. It should be manageable for a solo manager to create a draft plan for a slightly reduced slot count, but anymore and the manager should really have a locked-in helper. One manager per team would also make the manager price issue less influential considering it will affect half the number of people and you can no longer stack two high caliber players together for a sizable discount. I am often cautious about making too many changes to the format at once, but 6 slots + solo manager seem to go hand-in-hand imo.

I was a supporter of this during MWP, not sure if I ended up including it in my post back then since I knew it would not get a lot of support. While it is most definitely more enjoyable to go into a tournament with a co-manager, logistically it just makes more sense with 1 manager. This solves many issues regarding managers: less "broken manager pairs" and assures a "high quality" manager for every team, which becomes increasingly difficult with 2 managers since the usuals get tired of doing it multiple times a year, every year. It also just makes the pool better by having people move into the player pool and bring more diversity to the teams. Also as Ticken said, definitely support it in a 6 slot context.

I believe there should be some form of relegation of managers who consistently do poorly for these team tournaments.

I 100% agree with this. I believe the issue about manager relegation is more practical than ideal, as most managers are already predetermined by a small percentage of this community. Even then, it is possible to give an opportunity for those who decide to manage and want to work out their teams over managers who have had poor consistency and mindset. Managers should always have great responsibility for the road their team takes, even when not playing (but even more so true if they do decide to play).

This is an absolutely terrible idea and does not make much sense. First of all, there isn't exactly an abundance of quality manager signups such that you can relegate people. Most team tours usually have 1 or 2 viable options that get snubbed out, and the other ones are people who wouldn't have been trusted for it because of a lack of history playing/community wise or in terms of demonstrating the capability of holding the responsibility of being a manager. If someone were to genuinely just "be bad" as a manager, they would just lose their spot to a more viable option. Making a system like a relegation is so rigid and flawed. It also does not consider what other factors lead to a teams performance. Should we ban the teambuilders from the teams that finished last because the lack of quality can be attributed to them? I went 0-7 last tour, should I and anyone else with a low record not be allowed to signup because of a past performance? I think all of that is sufficient to point out that relegation is the complete wrong approach. If someone is known for genuinely being bad, the court of public opinion will weed them out without needing rules to do so. Moreover, you mentioned Izaya as an example which is a completely wrong one too. He managed 4 tours, one of them is MWCOP which cannot be used as an argument because managers have little control on their options, and he finished in semis for the last one. Only one of those 3 non-MWCOP tours was a last place finish. The other time he finished last, he was just a player on the team.

TL;DR: relegation is nonsense

Now, if we did stick with 2 managers, that brings us back to the initial problem of manager pricing. I'd like to reconsider the idea of having 2 managers but only 1 is allowed to play. This means that pricing wise it's the same as if we only had 1 manager but teams will still be able to have the 2 managers we are used to.

This, along with what you were saying about BLT, just gets solved by what Chait was proposing about having 1 manager + a co-manager decided post draft.



Now with that out of the way, my opinions:

Format: 6 Slots : SS Bo3 / SS / SS / SM / ORAS / BW

It is worth giving 6 slots a chance, and with this being the last SS focused team tour (in theory), it could be interesting to give a real focus on the competitive side. I do however agree with the sentiment of 8 slots being preferred in a community sense, and dislike the idea of downscaling our tournaments. If this tournament is 6 slots, I'd definitely look into compensating for it in other ways. However, as I mentioned before, I don't plan on 6 slots being a permanent thing as next MPL should be 8.

Managers: 1 manager + optional co-manager (only 1 of the 2 can be bought). If you do not have a co-manager, you would select someone from the team you drafted.

The idea I've had for a while and a bit of a mix of stuff that was mentioned throughout the thread. It is essentially similar to what NUPL does I believe? The benefits of 1 manager have been mentioned before, and the optional co-manager lets people who had no intention of playing regardless team up with someone. For example, think of past former manager pairs like Ticken + Zukushiku. The co-manager being optional pre-draft allows people to signup as a solo manager without being forced to get a non-playing assman.

Manager prices: Still torn on this topic tbh. I'm not sure on either doing a fixed price (20/25 k probably) or continuing the Wilson score approach. If anyone has some alternative formulas, or examples from other tiers, please do share !

Retains: No

Broken and kinda dumb system; it's fun for legacy purposes but just has too many potential issues. It's somewhat acceptable in 8 slots, but very abusable in 6 slots. Also, if we are going down from 8 to 6, it doesn't make sense to keep the same eligibilities and prices when the whole system is about to change.

Team size: 6 starters + 2 subs minimum.

Disagree with imposing a maximum like Chait suggested.

I don't think there is anything else to add so I'll leave it at that unless something else gets brought up. One thing however is in terms of the solo manager debate, I'd be interested in knowing what our signup options are like. Would some people only manage if they are a team of 2? Would some only manage alone? etc.. I know some people don't wanna reveal their managing plans right now, but if someone is interested in managing and doesn't mind, it would be nice if you could PM me your responses to those questions, and who your co would be in the case where 2 is mandatory. Not really a necessity, but depending on the responses I could maybe be swayed towards leaving it as 2 but I strongly lean towards 1 rn.

And to reiterate, the MPL following this one, I believe we should be doing a return to form which means back to 8 slots and 2 managers regardless of the outcome of this one. It is essential that in a new metagame we prioritize its development and on building its community. SS has stabilized to a point where we can have a tournament that prioritizes quality over quantity. That will not be case for the burgeoning state we will be in come next MPL.

 

[Chaitanya]

One last post, if there is a bo3 slot I think it should be multigen. There’s not enough old gen representation imo with wcop/third tour removed. Keep SS bo3 in cg tour(mwp) Getting the best players to play these old gens is a big step forward for those metas. It more or less forces the best players into that slot and let’s you theoretically fodder less as well cause it’s way easier to stick people into cg. I get the argument for SS bo3 where more people can play it but it makes it easier to bullshit too. Plenty of cg rep already

Also looking for the most competitive tour, please implement a maximum, there’s nothing competitively inclined about allowing armies. Not been a huge deal in the past anyway but a max of 10-11 is plenty. 5 subs max with 6 starters is wayyyy more than enough. Ok I’m done put up signups

 

[Kev]

The thread will be locked now as the discussion has concluded. The manager signups are open for those interested to be managers, otherwise players signups will be up next week.

Decided format:
6 Slots : SS Bo3 / SS / SS / SM / ORAS / BW
1 manager + optional co-manager (only 1 can play), if no co-manager pre-draft then they will select one from their drafted players following the draft
no retains
manager prices is still being worked out but will be updated during the week

Let's have a fun MPL season everyone !